Hi,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 19:09, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 7:26 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for working on this!
> >
> > On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 06:37, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 7:26 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for working on this!
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 06:37, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.
>
> I realized a behaviour change while looking at 'Use pgBufferUsage for
>
Hi,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 16:55, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 16:21, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 14:49, Alena Rybakina
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi! I could try to check it with the test, but I want to ask you about
> > >
Hi,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 16:21, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 14:49, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> >
> > Hi! I could try to check it with the test, but I want to ask you about
> > details, because I'm not sure that I completely understand the test case.
> >
> > You
Hi,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 14:49, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>
> Hi! I could try to check it with the test, but I want to ask you about
> details, because I'm not sure that I completely understand the test case.
>
> You mean that we need to have two backends and on one of them we deleted
> the tuples
Hi! I could try to check it with the test, but I want to ask you about
details, because I'm not sure that I completely understand the test case.
You mean that we need to have two backends and on one of them we deleted
the tuples before vacuum called the other, do you?
On 10.05.2024 13:25,
Hi,
Thank you for working on this!
On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 06:37, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.
I realized a behaviour change while looking at 'Use pgBufferUsage for
block reporting in analyze' thread [1]. Since that change applies here
as well,
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 3:41 PM Anthonin Bonnefoy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 5:37 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Here is the rebased version for the follow-up patch removing VacuumPage
> variables. Though I'm not sure
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 5:37 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.
Thanks!
Here is the rebased version for the follow-up patch removing VacuumPage
variables. Though I'm not sure if I should create a dedicated mail thread
since the bug was fixed and
Hi!
On 30.04.2024 05:18, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12 PM Alena Rybakina wrote:
Hi!
The same script was run, but using vacuum verbose analyze, and I saw the
difference again in the fifth step:
with your patch: buffer usage: 32312 hits, 607 misses, 1566 dirtied
master:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:34 PM Anthonin Bonnefoy
wrote:
>
> I've done some additional tests to validate the reported numbers. Using
> pg_statio, it's possible to get the minimum number of block hits (Full script
> attached).
>
> -- Save block hits before vacuum
> SELECT
I've done some additional tests to validate the reported numbers. Using
pg_statio, it's possible to get the minimum number of block hits (Full
script attached).
-- Save block hits before vacuum
SELECT pg_stat_force_next_flush();
SELECT heap_blks_hit, idx_blks_hit FROM pg_statio_all_tables where
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12 PM Alena Rybakina wrote:
>
> Hi!
>>
>> The same script was run, but using vacuum verbose analyze, and I saw the
>> difference again in the fifth step:
>> with your patch: buffer usage: 32312 hits, 607 misses, 1566 dirtied
>> master: buffer usage: 32346 hits, 573
Hi!
The same script was run, but using vacuum verbose analyze, and I
saw the difference again in the fifth step:
with your patch: buffer usage: 32312 hits, 607 misses, 1566 dirtied
master: buffer usage: 32346 hits, 573 misses, 1360 dirtied
Isn't there a chance for the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 4:01 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
> I tested the main postgres branch with and without your fix using a script
> that was written by me. It consists of five scenarios and I made a
> comparison in the logs between the original version of the master branch
> and the master
On 22.04.2024 11:07, Anthonin Bonnefoy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
Hi, thank you for your work with this subject.
While I was reviewing your code, I noticed that your patch
conflicts with another patch [0] that been committed.
[0]
Thanks for the review!
> I think that if the anayze command doesn't have the same issue, we
> don't need to change it.
Good point, I've wrongly assumed that analyze was also impacted but there's
no parallel analyze so the block count is correct.
> (a) make lazy vacuum use BufferUsage instead
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM Anthonin Bonnefoy
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alena Rybakina
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, thank you for your work with this subject.
>>
>> While I was reviewing your code, I noticed that your patch conflicts with
>> another patch [0] that been committed.
>>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
> Hi, thank you for your work with this subject.
>
> While I was reviewing your code, I noticed that your patch conflicts with
> another patch [0] that been committed.
>
> [0]
>
Hi, thank you for your work with this subject.
While I was reviewing your code, I noticed that your patch conflicts
with another patch [0] that been committed.
[0]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGJkOiOCa%2Bmag4BF%2BzHo7qo%3Do9CFheB8%3Dg6uT5TUm2gkvA%40mail.gmail.com
On
Hi,
Thanks for the review.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:07 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> As for the proposed patch, the following part should handle the temp
> tables too:
>
True, I've missed the local blocks. I've updated the patch:
- read_rate and write_rate now include local block usage
- I've
Hi,
Thank you for the report.
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:10 PM Anthonin Bonnefoy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With a db setup with pgbench, we add an additional index:
> CREATE INDEX ON pgbench_accounts(abalance)
>
> And trigger several updates and vacuum to reach a stable amount of
> dirtied pages:
>
Hi,
With a db setup with pgbench, we add an additional index:
CREATE INDEX ON pgbench_accounts(abalance)
And trigger several updates and vacuum to reach a stable amount of
dirtied pages:
UPDATE pgbench_accounts set abalance = abalance + 1 WHERE aid=1; CHECKPOINT;
VACUUM (VERBOSE, INDEX_CLEANUP
23 matches
Mail list logo
