Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shridhar Daithankar
Subject Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Date
Msg-id 3F8FFD29.2080805@persistent.co.in
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> writes:
> 
>>What part of plain vacuum takes disk bandwidth?
> 
> 
> Reading (and possibly rewriting) all the pages.

I was under impression that was for shared memory pages only and not for disk pages.

OK.  I can see difference of understanding here.

Plain Vacuum goes around the table/database and makes space, shared buffers and 
disks, reusable whenever possible but *does not* free any space.

Would it be possible to have a vacuum variant that would just shuffle thr. 
shared buffers and not touch disk at all?  pg_autovacuum could probably be ulra 
agressive with such a shared-buffers only scan? Is it possible or feasible?

IMO that could be a clever solution rather than throttling IO for vacuum. For 
one thing, getting that throttiling right, would be extremely difficult and 
varying from site to site. If it is going to be tough to tune, then it will be 
underutilised and will lose it's value rather rapidly.
 Just a thought..
 Shridhar









pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shridhar Daithankar
Date:
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Next
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mapping Oracle types to PostgreSQL types