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 simply skip
the
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 autovacuum issues
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
pointers
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. [...]
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 way
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 to find out
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
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.
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't
have to
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 frequent
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 approximately
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 no
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, 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 acquire
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 keep
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 call is
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
