Re: HOT patch, missing things - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: HOT patch, missing things
Date
Msg-id 87absu6ve6.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HOT patch, missing things  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: HOT patch, missing things  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
>> What if we just track the amount of potentially dead space in the
>> relation
>> (somebody had suggested that earlier in the thread) ? Every committed
>> UPDATE/DELETE and aborted UPDATE/INSERT would increment
>> the dead space. Whenever page fragmentation is repaired, either during
>> normal operation or during vacuum, the dead space is reduced by the
>> amount of reclaimed space. Autovacuum triggers whenever the percentage
>> of dead space increases beyond a threshold.
>
> Doesn't this design completely fail to take index bloat into account?
> Repairing heap fragmentation does not reduce the need for VACUUM to work
> on the indexes.

Index bloat is a bit of an open issue already. Because page splits already
prune any LP_DELETEd pointers any busy index keys will be pruned already.

However any index keys which have not been the subject of an index lookup --
and that includes keys which are only accessed by bitmap-index-scans -- won't
be pruned.

So we don't really know how much bloat is currently in an index. Perhaps we
need a new statistic which gets updated whenever a page split prunes
LP_DELETEd pointers (or perhaps when LP_DELETE is set?).

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about change in page/tuple header (v4)
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: HOT patch, missing things