Jan Wieck wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Okay, my proposal would be to have a VACUUM mode where it tells the
> >> buffer manager to only return a page if it is already in memory, and
> >> some "not cached" if it would have to read it from disk, and simp
Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Okay, my proposal would be to have a VACUUM mode where it tells the
buffer manager to only return a page if it is already in memory, and
some "not cached" if it would have to read it from disk, and simply skip
the page in that case.
Since no
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, my proposal would be to have a VACUUM mode where it tells the
> buffer manager to only return a page if it is already in memory, and
> some "not cached" if it would have to read it from disk, and simply skip
> the page in that case.
Since no such ca
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:18:02 -0400, Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Okay, my proposal would be to have a VACUUM mode where it tells the
>buffer manager to only return a page if it is already in memory
But how can it know? Yes, we know exactly what we have in PG shared
buffers. OTOH we kee
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:45:50 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>One big question mark in my mind about these "partial vacuum"
>proposals is whether they'd still allow adequate FSM information to be
>maintained. If VACUUM isn't looking at most of the pages, there's no
>very good way to acq
Okay, my proposal would be to have a VACUUM mode where it tells the
buffer manager to only return a page if it is already in memory, and
some "not cached" if it would have to read it from disk, and simply skip
the page in that case. Probably needs some modifications in vacuums FSM
handling, but
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. One big question mark in my mind about these "partial vacuum"
> proposals is whether they'd still allow adequate FSM information to be
> maintained. If VACUUM isn't looking at most of the pages, there's
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 11:17, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2003 at 11:03, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > That's why I think it needs one more pg_stat column to count the number
> > of vacuumed tuples. If one does
> >
> > tuples_updated + tuples_deleted - tuples_vacuumed
> >
> > he'll get app
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 11:08, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Another way to give autovacuum some hints would be to return some number
> > as commandtuples from vacuum. like the number of tuples actually
> > vacuumed. That together with the new number of reltuples in pg_class
> > will tell autovacuum how fr
On 22 Aug 2003 at 11:03, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >>> Umm.. What does FSM does then? I was under impression that FSM stores page
> >>> pointers and vacuum work on FSM information only. In that case, it wouldn
Jan Wieck wrote:
Another way to give autovacuum some hints would be to return some number
as commandtuples from vacuum. like the number of tuples actually
vacuumed. That together with the new number of reltuples in pg_class
will tell autovacuum how frequent a relation really needs scanning.
Whi
Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Umm.. What does FSM does then? I was under impression that FSM stores page
pointers and vacuum work on FSM information only. In that case, it wouldn't
have to waste time to find out which pages to clean.
It's the o
On 22 Aug 2003 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> >> Umm.. What does FSM does then? I was under impression that FSM stores page
> >> pointers and vacuum work on FSM information only. In that case, it wouldn't
> >> have to waste time
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>> Umm.. What does FSM does then? I was under impression that FSM stores page
>> pointers and vacuum work on FSM information only. In that case, it wouldn't
>> have to waste time to find out which pages to clean.
> It's the other
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Friday 22 August 2003 16:23, Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:15:33 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Which leads us to a zero gravity vacuum, that does the lazy vacuum for
>> pages currently available in the buffer cache only. [.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:27:53 +0530, Shridhar Daithankar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What does FSM does then?
FSM = Free Space Map. VACUUM writes information into the FSM, INSERTs
consult the FSM to find pages with free space for new tuples.
> I was under impression that FSM stores page
>pointer
On Friday 22 August 2003 16:23, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:15:33 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Which leads us to a zero gravity vacuum, that does the lazy vacuum for
> >> pages currently available in the buffer cache only. [...]
> >
> >Since au
17 matches
Mail list logo
