Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Date
Msg-id 20130906052236.GF6067@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian escribió:

> Ideas
> -----
> 
> I think we need to detect tables that do not have VM bits set and try to
> determine if they should be vacuumed.  If a table has most of its VM
> bits set, there in need to vacuum it for VM bit setting.

I think it's shortsighted to keep thinking of autovacuum as just a way
to run VACUUM and ANALYZE.  We have already discussed work items that
need to be done separately, such as truncating the last few empty pages
on a relation that was vacuumed recently.  We also need to process a GIN
index' pending insertion list; and with minmax indexes I will want to
run summarization of heap page ranges.

So maybe instead of trying to think of VM bit setting as part of vacuum,
we could just keep stats about how many pages we might need to scan
because of possibly needing to set the bit, and then doing that in
autovacuum, independently from actually vacuuming the relation.

I'm not sure if we need to expose all these new maintenance actions as
SQL commands.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers
Next
From: wangshuo@highgo.com.cn
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Is it necessary to rewrite table whileincreasing the scale of datatype numeric?