Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

2015-07-23 Thread Thakur, Sameer
Hello, Yes. Any percent completion calculation will have to account for the case of needing multiple passes through all the indexes. Each dead tuple requires 6 bytes (IIRC) of maintenance work mem. So if you're deleting 5M rows with m_w_m=1MB you should be getting many passes through the

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

2015-07-23 Thread Thakur, Sameer
Hello, logged 25 times Sorry, it is much lower at 7 times. Does not change overall point though regards Sameer Thakur | Senior Software Specialist | NTTDATA Global Delivery Services Private Ltd | w. +91.20.6641.7146 | VoIP: 8834.8146 | m. +91 989.016.6656 | sameer.tha...@nttdata.com | Follow us

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

2015-07-22 Thread Thakur, Sameer
Hello, I think it'd be better to combine both numbers into one report: It'd also be good to standardize on where the * 100 is happening. Done can be replaced by (itemptr-ipblkid != vacrelstats-last_scanned_page) Get compiler error : invalid operands to binary != (have ‘BlockIdData’ and

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

2015-07-20 Thread Thakur, Sameer
Hello, Does this actually handle multiple indexes? It doesn't appear so, which I'd think is a significant problem... :/ Please find v2 attached which does this. I'm also not seeing how this will deal with exhausting maintenance_work_mem. ISTM that when that happens you'd definitely want a better

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

2015-07-15 Thread Thakur, Sameer
Hello, I am not really willing to show up as the picky guy here, but could it be possible to receive those patches as attached to emails instead of having them referenced by URL? I imagine that you are directly using the nabble interface. Just configured a new mail client for nabble, did not