On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 15 February 2017 at 08:07, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's a bug. Attached latest version patch, which passed make check.
>>
>> In its current form, I'm not sure this is a good idea. Problems...
>>
>> 1. I'm pretty sure the world doesn't need another VACUUM parameter
>>
>> I suggest that we use the existing vacuum scale factor/4 to reflect
>> that indexes are more sensitive to bloat.
>
> I do not think it's a good idea to control multiple behaviors with a
> single GUC. We don't really know that dividing by 4 will be right for
> everyone, or even for most people. It's better to have another
> parameter with a sensible default than to hardcode a ratio that might
> work out poorly for some people.
>
>> 2. The current btree vacuum code requires 2 vacuums to fully reuse
>> half-dead pages. So skipping an index vacuum might mean that second
>> index scan never happens at all, which would be bad.
>
> Maybe. If there are a tiny number of those half-dead pages in a huge
> index, it probably doesn't matter. Also, I don't think it would never
> happen, unless the table just never gets any more updates or deletes -
> but that case could also happen today. It's just a matter of
> happening less frequently.
The half-dead pages are never cleaned up if the ratio of pages
containing garbage is always lower than threshold. Also in gin index
the pending list is never cleared, which become big problem. I guess
that we should take action for each type of indexes.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
