Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
> Patched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
> tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
> Unpatched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1284504(-0)
> tuples:25001369(-1973760) CPU 86.55s/34.70u sec elapsed 9628.13 sec
So that makes this patch a good idea why? (Maybe what we need to see
is the impact on the total elapsed time for the DBT-2 test, rather
than just the VACUUM runtime.)
BTW I've got serious reservations about whether this bit is safe:
> + /* The table could've grown since vacuum started, and
> there
> + * might already be dead tuples on the new pages. Catch
> them
> + * as well. Also, we want to include any live tuples in
> the
> + * new pages in the statistics.
> + */
> + nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(onerel);
I seem to recall some assumptions somewhere in the system that a vacuum
won't visit newly-added pages.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
