mirror/postgresql
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git synced 2024-12-15 08:20:16 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
85bc36158d
postgresql/doc/TODO.detail/vacuum

1871 lines
72 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 19:08:30 2000
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA10148
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:08:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cadzone ([126.0.1.40] (may be forged))
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id KAA02790; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:08:02 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:13:40 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001181821.NAA02988@candle.pha.pa.us>
Status: ROr
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement REINDEX command.
> >
> > REINDEX operation itself is available everywhere and
> > I've thought about applying it to VACUUM.
>
> That is a good idea. Vacuuming of indexes can be very slow.
>
> > .
> > My plan is as follows.
> >
> > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > and if index recreation is specified.
>
> Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> vacuum,
Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
vacuum.
New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
2) Does shrink index files
But in case of abort/crash
1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> > Now I'm inclined to use relhasindex of pg_class to
> > validate/invalidate indexes of a table at once.
>
> There are a few calls to CatalogIndexInsert() that know the
> system table they
> are using and know it has indexes, so it does not check that field. You
> could add cases for that.
>
I think there aren't so many places to check.
I would examine it if my idea is OK.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 19:15:27 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA10454
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:15:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA42280;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:10:35 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:10:30 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA42081
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:09:31 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA41943
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:08:39 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from Inoue@tpf.co.jp)
Received: from cadzone ([126.0.1.40] (may be forged))
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id KAA02790; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:08:02 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:13:40 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001181821.NAA02988@candle.pha.pa.us>
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement REINDEX command.
> >
> > REINDEX operation itself is available everywhere and
> > I've thought about applying it to VACUUM.
>
> That is a good idea. Vacuuming of indexes can be very slow.
>
> > .
> > My plan is as follows.
> >
> > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > and if index recreation is specified.
>
> Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> vacuum,
Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
vacuum.
New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
2) Does shrink index files
But in case of abort/crash
1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> > Now I'm inclined to use relhasindex of pg_class to
> > validate/invalidate indexes of a table at once.
>
> There are a few calls to CatalogIndexInsert() that know the
> system table they
> are using and know it has indexes, so it does not check that field. You
> could add cases for that.
>
I think there aren't so many places to check.
I would examine it if my idea is OK.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 19:57:21 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA11764
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:57:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA50653;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:38 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:30 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA50513
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:51:32 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA50462
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:51:06 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id UAA11421;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:50:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190150.UAA11421@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 10:13:40 am"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:50:50 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: ROr
> > > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > > and if index recreation is specified.
> >
> > Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> > vacuum,
>
> Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
> vacuum.
>
> New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
> 1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
> 2) Does shrink index files
>
> But in case of abort/crash
> 1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
> 2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
>
> I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
traversing the index during the rename().
Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
old copy of the index.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From pgman Tue Jan 18 20:04:11 2000
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id VAA11990;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman>
Message-Id: <200001190204.VAA11990@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <200001190150.UAA11421@candle.pha.pa.us> from Bruce Momjian at "Jan
18, 2000 08:50:50 pm"
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0500 (EST)
CC: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
> > I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
> vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
>
> In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
> zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
>
> In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> traversing the index during the rename().
>
> Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
>
> In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> old copy of the index.
Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
important use of reindex.
Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
If we don't do that and vacuum fails, what state is the table left in?
If we don't update the index for every tuple, the index is invalid in a
vacuum failure. rename() is not going to help us here. It keeps the
old index around, but the index is invalid anyway, right?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 20:18:48 2000
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA12437
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cadzone ([126.0.1.40] (may be forged))
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id LAA02845; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:18:18 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:23:55 +0900
Message-ID: <000801bf6224$3bfdd9a0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001190204.VAA11990@candle.pha.pa.us>
Status: ROr
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> > > I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
> >
> > That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
> > vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
> >
> > In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
> > zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
> >
> > In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> > table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> > read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> > with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> > during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> > access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> > traversing the index during the rename().
> >
> > Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> > is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> > use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> > one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> > change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
> >
> > In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> > table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> > old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> > the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> > this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> > old copy of the index.
>
> Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
> meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> important use of reindex.
>
> Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
>
Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 20:53:49 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA13285
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:53:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA65183;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:47:47 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:47:33 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA65091
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:46:33 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA65034
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:46:12 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id VAA13040;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:45:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190245.VAA13040@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000801bf6224$3bfdd9a0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 11:23:55 am"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:45:27 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
> > > In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> > > table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> > > read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> > > with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> > > during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> > > access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> > > traversing the index during the rename().
> > >
> > > Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> > > is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> > > use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> > > one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> > > change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
> > >
> > > In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> > > table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> > > old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> > > the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> > > this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> > > old copy of the index.
> >
> > Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
> > meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> > important use of reindex.
> >
> > Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> > handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> > it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
> >
>
> Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 21:15:24 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA14115
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:15:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA72950;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:10:40 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:10:32 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA72644
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:09:36 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA72504
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:08:40 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA13965;
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:08:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190308.WAA13965@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 12:10:32 pm"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:08:25 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UNKNOWN-8BIT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
> I heard from someone that old vacuum had been like so.
> Probably 2x disk space for big tables was a big disadvantage.
That's interesting.
>
> In addition,rename(),unlink(),mv aren't preferable for transaction
> control as far as I see. We couldn't avoid inconsistency using
> those OS functions.
I disagree. Vacuum can't be rolled back anyway in the sense you can
bring back expire tuples, though I have no idea why you would want to.
You have an exclusive lock on the table. Putting new heap/indexes in
place that match and have no expired tuples seems like it can not fail
in any situation.
Of course, the buffers of the old table have to be marked as invalid,
but with an exclusive lock, that is not a problem. I am sure we do that
anyway<EFBFBD>in vacuum.
> We have to wait the change of relation file naming if copying
> vacuum is needed.
> Under the spec we need not rename(),mv etc.
Sorry, I don't agree, yet...
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 21:05:23 2000
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA13858
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:05:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cadzone ([126.0.1.40] (may be forged))
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id MAA02870; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:04:55 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:10:32 +0900
Message-ID: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001190245.VAA13040@candle.pha.pa.us>
Status: ROr
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > >
> > > Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of
> rename() are
> > > meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> > > important use of reindex.
> > >
> > > Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> > > handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> > > it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
> > >
> >
> > Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> > table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> > As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
>
> OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
> moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
> new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
> lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
> of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
>
I heard from someone that old vacuum had been like so.
Probably 2x disk space for big tables was a big disadvantage.
In addition,rename(),unlink(),mv aren't preferable for transaction
control as far as I see. We couldn't avoid inconsistency using
those OS functions.
We have to wait the change of relation file naming if copying
vacuum is needed.
Under the spec we need not rename(),mv etc.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From dms@wplus.net Wed Jan 19 15:30:40 2000
Received: from relay.wplus.net (relay.wplus.net [195.131.52.179])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA25919
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:30:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Received: from wplus.net (ppdms.dialup.wplus.net [195.131.52.71])
by relay.wplus.net (8.9.1/8.9.1/wplus.2) with ESMTP id AAA64218;
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:26:37 +0300 (MSK)
Message-ID: <38862C9D.C2151E4E@wplus.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:29:01 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
References: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: ROr
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> > > table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> > > As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
> >
> > OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
> > moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
> > new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
> > lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
> > of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
> >
>
> I heard from someone that old vacuum had been like so.
> Probably 2x disk space for big tables was a big disadvantage.
Yes, It is critical.
How about sequence like this:
* Drop indices (keeping somewhere index descriptions)
* vacuuming table
* recreate indices
If something crash, user have been noticed
to re-run vacuum or recreate indices by hand
when system restarts.
I use script like described above for vacuuming
- it really increase vacuum performance for large table.
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From dms@wplus.net Wed Jan 19 15:42:49 2000
Received: from relay.wplus.net (relay.wplus.net [195.131.52.179])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA26645
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:42:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Received: from wplus.net (ppdms.dialup.wplus.net [195.131.52.71])
by relay.wplus.net (8.9.1/8.9.1/wplus.2) with ESMTP id AAA65264;
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:39:02 +0300 (MSK)
Message-ID: <38862F86.20328BD3@wplus.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:41:26 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
References: <200001192132.QAA26048@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: ROr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> We need two things:
>
> auto-create index on startup
IMHO, It have to be controlled by user, because creating large index
can take a number of hours. Sometimes it's better to live without
indices
at all, and then build it by hand after workday end.
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Thu Jan 20 23:51:34 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA13891
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:51:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA91784;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:47:07 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:45:38 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA91495
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:44:40 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA91378
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:44:04 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA13592;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:43:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:43:49 -0500 (EST)
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
400MB and index is 160MB.
With index on the single in4 column, I got:
78 seconds for a vacuum
121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
With no index, I got:
43 seconds for a vacuum
43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
I find this quite interesting.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 00:34:56 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA15559
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:34:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA06108;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:32:23 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:30:38 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03704
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:27:53 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from sunpine.krs.ru (SunPine.krs.ru [195.161.16.37])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01710
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:26:44 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from vadim@krs.ru)
Received: from krs.ru (dune.krs.ru [195.161.16.38])
by sunpine.krs.ru (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA01685;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700 (KRS)
Message-ID: <3887FC19.80305217@krs.ru>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700
From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: ru, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
References: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> With no index, I got:
> 43 seconds for a vacuum
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
Wi/wo -F ?
Vadim
************
From vadim@krs.ru Fri Jan 21 00:26:33 2000
Received: from sunpine.krs.ru (SunPine.krs.ru [195.161.16.37])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA15239
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:26:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from krs.ru (dune.krs.ru [195.161.16.38])
by sunpine.krs.ru (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA01685;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700 (KRS)
Sender: root@sunpine.krs.ru
Message-ID: <3887FC19.80305217@krs.ru>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700
From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: ru, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
References: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: ROr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> With no index, I got:
> 43 seconds for a vacuum
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
Wi/wo -F ?
Vadim
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Fri Jan 21 00:40:35 2000
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA15684
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cadzone ([126.0.1.40] (may be forged))
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id PAA04316; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:40:35 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>,
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:46:15 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf63db$36cdae20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Status: RO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
vc_vaconeind() is called once
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
vc_vaconeind() is called twice
Hmmm,vc_vaconeind() takes pretty long time even if it does little.
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
How about half of the rows deleted case ?
It would take longer time.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 12:00:49 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA13329
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:00:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA96106;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:55:34 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:53:53 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA95775
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:52:54 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (root@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA95720
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:52:39 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA12106;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <3641.948433911@sss.pgh.pa.us> from Tom Lane at "Jan 21, 2000 00:51:51
am"
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500 (EST)
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> > 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> > With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> > 78 seconds for a vacuum
> > 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> > 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> > With no index, I got:
> > 43 seconds for a vacuum
> > 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> > 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> > I find this quite interesting.
>
> How long does it take to create the index on your setup --- ie,
> if vacuum did a drop/create index, would it be competitive?
OK, new timings with -F enabled:
index no index
519 same load
247 " first vacuum
40 " other vacuums
1222 X index creation
90 X first vacuum
80 X other vacuums
<1 90 delete one row
121 38 vacuum after delete 1 row
346 344 delete all rows
440 44 first vacuum
20 <1 other vacuums(index is still same size)
Conclusions:
o indexes never get smaller
o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
What other conclusions can be made?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From scrappy@hub.org Fri Jan 21 12:45:38 2000
Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat200.60.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.200.60])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA14380
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:45:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost)
by thelab.hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA68289;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:45:35 -0400 (AST)
(envelope-from scrappy@hub.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:45:34 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211443480.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, new timings with -F enabled:
>
> index no index
> 519 same load
> 247 " first vacuum
> 40 " other vacuums
>
> 1222 X index creation
> 90 X first vacuum
> 80 X other vacuums
>
> <1 90 delete one row
> 121 38 vacuum after delete 1 row
>
> 346 344 delete all rows
> 440 44 first vacuum
> 20 <1 other vacuums(index is still same size)
>
> Conclusions:
>
> o indexes never get smaller
this one, I thought, was a known? if I remember right, Vadim changed it
so that space was reused, but index never shrunk in size ... no?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 13:06:35 2000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA14618
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:06:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16501;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:06:31 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:06:31 -0500
Message-ID: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: RO
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
> o indexes never get smaller
Which we knew...
> o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some
fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases.
regards, tom lane
From dms@wplus.net Fri Jan 21 13:51:27 2000
Received: from relay.wplus.net (relay.wplus.net [195.131.52.179])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA15623
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:51:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Received: from wplus.net (ppdms.dialup.wplus.net [195.131.52.71])
by relay.wplus.net (8.9.1/8.9.1/wplus.2) with ESMTP id WAA89451;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:46:19 +0300 (MSK)
Message-ID: <3888B822.28F79A1F@wplus.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:48:50 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us> <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: ROr
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Conclusions:
> > o indexes never get smaller
>
> Which we knew...
>
> > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
>
> Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
slowly.
Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
(FreeBSD 3.3)
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 14:04:08 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA16140
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA34808;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:59:30 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:57:48 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA34320
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:56:50 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA34255
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:56:18 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA15772;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:54:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001211954.OAA15772@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <3888B822.28F79A1F@wplus.net> from Dmitry Samersoff at "Jan 21,
2000 10:48:50 pm"
To: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:54:21 -0500 (EST)
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: RO
[Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Conclusions:
> > > o indexes never get smaller
> >
> > Which we knew...
> >
> > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
> >
> > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
>
> I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
> slowly.
> Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
> (FreeBSD 3.3)
OK, we are researching what things can be done to improve this. We are
toying with:
lock table for less duration, or read lock
creating another copy of heap/indexes, and rename() over old files
improving heap vacuum speed
improving index vacuum speed
moving analyze out of vacuum
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From scrappy@hub.org Fri Jan 21 14:12:16 2000
Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat200.60.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.200.60])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA16521
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:12:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost)
by thelab.hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA69039;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:12:25 -0400 (AST)
(envelope-from scrappy@hub.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:12:25 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <200001211954.OAA15772@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > Conclusions:
> > > > o indexes never get smaller
> > >
> > > Which we knew...
> > >
> > > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
> > >
> > > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
> >
> > I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
> > slowly.
> > Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
> > (FreeBSD 3.3)
>
> OK, we are researching what things can be done to improve this. We are
> toying with:
>
> lock table for less duration, or read lock
if there is some way that we can work around the bug that I believe Tom
found with removing the lock altogether (ie. makig use of MVCC), I think
that would be the best option ... if not possible, at least get things
down to a table lock vs the whole database?
a good example is the udmsearch that we are using on the site ... it uses
multiple tables to store the dictionary, each representing words of X size
... if I'm searching on a 4 letter word, and the whole database is locked
while it is working on the dictionary with 8 letter words, I'm sitting
there idle ... at least if we only locked the 8 letter table, everyone not
doing 8 letter searches can go on their merry way ...
Slightly longer vacuum's, IMHO, are acceptable if, to the end users, its
as transparent as possible ... locking per table would be slightly slower,
I think, because once a table is finished, the next table would need to
have an exclusive lock put on it before starting, so you'd have to
possibly wait for that...?
> creating another copy of heap/indexes, and rename() over old files
sounds to me like introducing a large potential for error here ...
> moving analyze out of vacuum
I think that should be done anyway ... if we ever get to the point that
we're able to re-use rows in tables, then that would eliminate the
immediate requirement for vacuum, but still retain a requirement for a
periodic analyze ... no?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 16:02:07 2000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA20290
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:02:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09697;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:02:06 -0500 (EST)
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:12:25 -0400"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:02:06 -0500
Message-ID: <9694.948492126@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: RO
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> lock table for less duration, or read lock
> if there is some way that we can work around the bug that I believe Tom
> found with removing the lock altogether (ie. makig use of MVCC), I think
> that would be the best option ... if not possible, at least get things
> down to a table lock vs the whole database?
Huh? VACUUM only requires an exclusive lock on the table it is
currently vacuuming; there's no database-wide lock.
Even a single-table exclusive lock is bad, of course, if it's a large
table that's critical to a 24x7 application. Bruce was talking about
the possibility of having VACUUM get just a write lock on the table;
other backends could still read it, but not write it, during the vacuum
process. That'd be a considerable step forward for 24x7 applications,
I think.
It looks like that could be done if we rewrote the table as a new file
(instead of compacting-in-place), but there's a problem when it comes
time to rename the new files into place. At that point you'd need to
get an exclusive lock to ensure all the readers are out of the table too
--- and upgrading from a plain lock to an exclusive lock is a well-known
recipe for deadlocks. Not sure if this can be solved.
regards, tom lane
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 22:50:34 2000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA01657
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19681;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:13 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:13 -0500
Message-ID: <19678.948516613@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: ROr
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
> o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
BTW, I did some profiling of CREATE INDEX this evening (quite
unintentionally actually; I was interested in COPY IN, but the pg_dump
script I used as driver happened to create some indexes too). I was
startled to discover that 60% of the runtime of CREATE INDEX is spent in
_bt_invokestrat (which is called from tuplesort.c's comparetup_index,
and exists only to figure out which specific comparison routine to call).
Of this, a whopping 4% was spent in the useful subroutine, int4gt. All
the rest went into lookup and validation checks that by rights should be
done once per index creation, not once per comparison.
In short: a fairly straightforward bit of optimization will eliminate
circa 50% of the CPU time consumed by CREATE INDEX. All we need is to
figure out where to cache the lookup results. The optimization would
improve insertions and lookups in indexes, as well, if we can cache
the lookup results in those scenarios.
This was for a table small enough that tuplesort.c could do the sort
entirely in memory, so I'm sure the gains would be smaller for a large
table that requires a disk-based sort. Still, it seems worth looking
into...
regards, tom lane
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Jan 22 02:31:03 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id DAA06743
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id DAA07529 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:25:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA31900;
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:19:53 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:17:56 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA31715
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:16:58 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA31647
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:16:26 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from Inoue@tpf.co.jp)
Received: from mcadnote1 (ppm114.noc.fukui.nsk.ne.jp [210.161.188.33])
by sd.tpf.co.jp (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
id RAA04754; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:14:43 +0900
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:15:37 +0900
Message-ID: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Status: RO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Conclusions:
> > o indexes never get smaller
>
> Which we knew...
>
> > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
>
> Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
> You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some
> fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases.
>
Vacuum after delelting all rows isn't a worst case.
There's no moving in that case and vacuum doesn't need to call
index_insert() corresponding to the moving of heap tuples.
Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case.
In this case,index_delete() is called as many times as 'delete all'
case and expensive index_insert() is called for moved_in tuples.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
************
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Sat Jan 22 10:31:02 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA20882
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:31:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id LAA26612 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20569;
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:11:26 -0500 (EST)
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
References: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
message dated "Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:15:37 +0900"
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:11:25 -0500
Message-ID: <20566.948557485@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: RO
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case.
Or equivalently, vacuum after updating all the rows.
regards, tom lane
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Thu Jan 20 23:51:49 2000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA13919
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:51:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03644;
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:51:51 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:43:49 -0500"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:51:51 -0500
Message-ID: <3641.948433911@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: ROr
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
> With no index, I got:
> 43 seconds for a vacuum
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
> I find this quite interesting.
How long does it take to create the index on your setup --- ie,
if vacuum did a drop/create index, would it be competitive?
regards, tom lane
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M5909@hub.org Thu Aug 17 20:15:33 2000
Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA00644
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:15:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e7I0APm69660;
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:10:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (bright@ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7I01Jm68072
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7I01IA20820
for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:01:18 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] VACUUM optimization ideas.
Message-ID: <20000817170118.K4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: ROr
Here's two ideas I had for optimizing vacuum, I apologize in advance
if the ideas presented here are niave and don't take into account
the actual code that makes up postgresql.
================
#1
Reducing the time vacuum must hold an exlusive lock on a table:
The idea is that since rows are marked deleted it's ok for the
vacuum to fill them with data from the tail of the table as
long as no transaction is in progress that has started before
the row was deleted.
This may allow the vacuum process to copyback all the data without
a lock, when all the copying is done it then aquires an exlusive lock
and does this:
Aquire an exclusive lock.
Walk all the deleted data marking it as current.
Truncate the table.
Release the lock.
Since the data is still marked invalid (right?) even if valid data
is copied into the space it should be ignored as long as there's no
transaction occurring that started before the data was invalidated.
================
#2
Reducing the amount of scanning a vaccum must do:
It would make sense that if a value of the earliest deleted chunk
was kept in a table then vacuum would not have to scan the entire
table in order to work, it would only need to start at the 'earliest'
invalidated row.
The utility of this (at least for us) is that we have several tables
that will grow to hundreds of megabytes, however changes will only
happen at the tail end (recently added rows). If we could reduce the
amount of time spent in a vacuum state it would help us a lot.
================
I'm wondering if these ideas make sense and may help at all.
thanks,
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M5912@hub.org Fri Aug 18 01:36:14 2000
Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA07787
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e7I5Q2m38759;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from courier02.adinet.com.uy (courier02.adinet.com.uy [206.99.44.245])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7I5Bam35785
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:11:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from adinet.com.uy (haroldo@r207-50-240-116.adinet.com.uy [207.50.240.116])
by courier02.adinet.com.uy (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17259;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:10:49 -0300 (GMT)
Message-ID: <399CC739.B9B13D18@adinet.com.uy>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:18:49 -0300
From: hstenger@adinet.com.uy
Reply-To: hstenger@ieee.org
Organization: PRISMA, Servicio y Desarrollo
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM optimization ideas.
References: <20000817170118.K4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: ROr
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> #1
>
> Reducing the time vacuum must hold an exlusive lock on a table:
>
> The idea is that since rows are marked deleted it's ok for the
> vacuum to fill them with data from the tail of the table as
> long as no transaction is in progress that has started before
> the row was deleted.
>
> This may allow the vacuum process to copyback all the data without
> a lock, when all the copying is done it then aquires an exlusive lock
> and does this:
>
> Aquire an exclusive lock.
> Walk all the deleted data marking it as current.
> Truncate the table.
> Release the lock.
>
> Since the data is still marked invalid (right?) even if valid data
> is copied into the space it should be ignored as long as there's no
> transaction occurring that started before the data was invalidated.
Yes, but nothing prevents newer transactions from modifying the _origin_ side of
the copied data _after_ it was copied, but before the Lock-Walk-Truncate-Unlock
cycle takes place, and so it seems unsafe. Maybe locking each record before
copying it up ...
Regards,
Haroldo.
--
----------------------+------------------------
Haroldo Stenger | hstenger@ieee.org
Montevideo, Uruguay. | hstenger@adinet.com.uy
----------------------+------------------------
Visit UYLUG Web Site: http://www.linux.org.uy
-----------------------------------------------
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M5917@hub.org Fri Aug 18 09:41:33 2000
Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA05170
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:41:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e7IDVjm75143;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andie.ip23.net (andie.ip23.net [212.83.32.23])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7IDPIm73296
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap1.ip23.net (imap1.ip23.net [212.83.32.35])
by andie.ip23.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA58387;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:25:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ip23.net (spc.ip23.net [212.83.32.122])
by imap1.ip23.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA59177;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:41:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <399D3938.582FDB49@ip23.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:25:12 +0200
From: Sevo Stille <sevo@ip23.net>
Organization: IP23
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM optimization ideas.
References: <20000817170118.K4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: RO
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> The idea is that since rows are marked deleted it's ok for the
> vacuum to fill them with data from the tail of the table as
> long as no transaction is in progress that has started before
> the row was deleted.
Well, isn't one of the advantages of vacuuming in the reordering it
does? With a "fill deleted chunks" logic, we'd have far less order in
the databases.
> This may allow the vacuum process to copyback all the data without
> a lock,
Nope. Another process might update the values in between move and mark,
if the record is not locked. We'd either have to write-lock the entire
table for that period, write lock every item as it is moved, or lock,
move and mark on a per-record base. The latter would be slow, but it
could be done in a permanent low priority background process, utilizing
empty CPU cycles. Besides, it probably could not only be done simply
filling from the tail, but also moving up the records in a sorted
fashion.
> #2
>
> Reducing the amount of scanning a vaccum must do:
>
> It would make sense that if a value of the earliest deleted chunk
> was kept in a table then vacuum would not have to scan the entire
> table in order to work, it would only need to start at the 'earliest'
> invalidated row.
Trivial to do. But of course #1 may imply that the physical ordering is
even less likely to be related to the logical ordering in a way where
this helps.
> The utility of this (at least for us) is that we have several tables
> that will grow to hundreds of megabytes, however changes will only
> happen at the tail end (recently added rows).
The tail is a relative position - except for the case where you add
temporary records to a constant default set, everything in the tail will
move, at least relatively, to the head after some time.
> If we could reduce the
> amount of time spent in a vacuum state it would help us a lot.
Rather: If we can reduce the time spent in a locked state while
vacuuming, it would help a lot. Being in a vacuum is not the issue -
even permanent vacuuming need not be an issue, if the locks it uses are
suitably short-time.
Sevo
--
sevo@ip23.net
From pgsql-hackers-owner+M5911@hub.org Thu Aug 17 21:11:20 2000
Received: from hub.org (root@hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA01882
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hub.org (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e7I119m80626;
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acheron.rime.com.au (root@albatr.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.54.222])
by hub.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7I0wMm79870
for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from oberon (Oberon.rime.com.au [203.8.195.100])
by acheron.rime.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03215;
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:58:25 +1000
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000818105835.0280ade0@mail.rhyme.com.au>
X-Sender: pjw@mail.rhyme.com.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:58:35 +1000
To: Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>,
Ben Adida <ben@openforce.net>
From: Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inserting a select statement result into another
table
Cc: Andrew Selle <aselle@upl.cs.wisc.edu>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <399C7689.2DDDAD1D@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au>
References: <20000817130517.A10909@upl.cs.wisc.edu>
<399BF555.43FB70C8@openforce.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
Status: O
At 09:34 18/08/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>He does ask a legitimate question though. If you are going to have a
>LIMIT feature (which of course is not pure SQL), there seems no reason
>you shouldn't be able to insert the result into a table.
This feature is supported by two commercial DBs: Dec/RDB and SQL/Server. I
have no idea if Oracle supports it, but it is such a *useful* feature that
I would be very surprised if it didn't.
>Ben Adida wrote:
>>
>> What is the purpose you're trying to accomplish with this order by? No
matter what, all the
>> rows where done='f' will be inserted, and you will not be left with any
indication of that
>> order once the rows are in the todolist table.
I don't know what his *purpose* was, but the query should only insert the
first two rows from the select bacause of the limit).
>> Andrew Selle wrote:
>>
>> > Alright. My situation is this. I have a list of things that need to
be done
>> > in a table called tasks. I have a list of users who will complete
these tasks.
>> > I want these users to be able to come in and "claim" the top 2 most
recent tasks
>> > that have been added. These tasks then get stored in a table called
todolist
>> > which stores who claimed the task, the taskid, and when the task was
claimed.
>> > For each time someone wants to claim some number of tasks, I want to
do something
>> > like
>> >
>> > INSERT INTO todolist
>> > SELECT taskid,'1',now()
>> > FROM tasks
>> > WHERE done='f'
>> > ORDER BY submit DESC
>> > LIMIT 2;
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink