Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
Date
Msg-id 20121203182020.GA16057@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2012-12-03 23:44:36 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> I wonder if we really need to make another pass over the entire visibility
> map to count the number of all-visible pages at the end of the vacuum. The
> code that I'm looking at is in src/backend/commands/vacuumlazy.c:
>
>  247     new_rel_allvisible = visibilitymap_count(onerel);
>  248     if (new_rel_allvisible > new_rel_pages)
>  249         new_rel_allvisible = new_rel_pages;
>
> We would have just scanned every bit of the visibility map and can remember
> information about the number of all-visible pages in vacrelstats, just like
> many other statistical information that we track and update the end of the
> vacuum. Sure, there might be some more updates to the VM, especially a few
> bits may get cleared while we are vacuuming the table, but that can happen
> even while we are recounting at the end. AFAICS we can deal with that much
> staleness of the data.

A full-table vacuum can take a *long* (as in days) time, so I think
recounting makes sense. And normally the cost is pretty small, so I
don't see a problem in this.

Why change it?

Andres
--Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum