Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now when the queue tables get 1000 times dead space compared to their
> > > > normal size, I get performance problems. So tweaking vacuum cost delay
> > > > doesn't buy me anything, as not vacuum per se is the performance
> > > > problem, it's long run time for big tables is.
> > >
> > > So for you it would certainly help a lot to be able to vacuum the first
> > > X pages of the big table, stop, release locks, create new transaction,
> > > continue with the next X pages, lather, rinse, repeat.
> >
> > But what about index clearing? When do you scan each index?
>
> At the end of each iteration (or earlier, depending on
> maintenance_work_mem). So for each iteration you would need to scan the
> indexes.
>
> Maybe we could make maintenance_work_mem be the deciding factor; after
> scanning the indexes, do the release/reacquire locks cycle.
Ewe. How expensive is scanning an index compared to the heap? Does
anyone have figure on that in terms of I/O and time?
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
