Hello.
At Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:37:24 +0000, "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote in
> From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク <k.jamison@fujitsu.com>
# Wow. I'm surprised to read it..
> > I revised the patch based from my understanding of Horiguchi-san's comment,
> > but I could be wrong.
> > Quoting:
> >
> > "
> > + /* Get the number of blocks for the supplied relation's
> > fork */
> > + nblocks = smgrnblocks(smgr_reln,
> > forkNum[fork_num]);
> > + Assert(BlockNumberIsValid(nblocks));
> > +
> > + if (nblocks < BUF_DROP_FULLSCAN_THRESHOLD)
> >
> > As mentioned upthread, the criteria whether we do full-scan or
> > lookup-drop is how large portion of NBUFFERS this relation-drop can be
> > going to invalidate. So the nblocks above should be the sum of number
> > of blocks to be truncated (not just the total number of blocks) of all
> > designated forks. Then once we decided to do lookup-drop method, we
> > do that for all forks."
>
> One takeaway from Horiguchi-san's comment is to use the number of blocks to invalidate for comparison, instead of all
blocksin the fork. That is, use
>
> nblocks = smgrnblocks(fork) - firstDelBlock[fork];
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> What do you think is the reason for summing up all forks? I didn't understand why. Typically, FSM and VM forks are
verysmall. If the main fork is larger than NBuffers / 500, then v14 scans the entire shared buffers for the FSM and VM
forksas well as the main fork, resulting in three scans in total.
I thought of summing up smgrnblocks(fork) - firstDelBlock[fork] of all
folks. I don't mind omitting non-main forks but a comment to explain
the reason or reasoning would be needed.
reards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
