On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 14 September 2016 at 11:19, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In
>>> theory we could even start with the list of TIDs and switch to the
>>> bitmap if the TID list becomes larger than the bitmap would have been,
>>> but I don't know if it's worth the effort.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that works too. Or may be even better because we already know the
>> bitmap size requirements, definitely for the tuples collected so far. We
>> might need to maintain some more stats to further optimise the
>> representation, but that seems like unnecessary detailing at this point.
>
> That sounds best to me... build the simple representation, but as we
> do maintain stats to show to what extent that set of tuples is
> compressible.
>
> When we hit the limit on memory we can then selectively compress
> chunks to stay within memory, starting with the most compressible
> chunks.
>
> I think we should use the chunking approach Robert suggests, though
> mainly because that allows us to consider how parallel VACUUM should
> work - writing the chunks to shmem. That would also allow us to apply
> a single global limit for vacuum memory rather than an allocation per
> VACUUM.
> We can then scan multiple indexes at once in parallel, all accessing
> the shmem data structure.
>
Yeah, the chunking approach Robert suggested seems like a good idea
but considering implementing parallel vacuum, it would be more
complicated IMO.
I think It's better the multiple process simply allocate memory space
for its process than that the single process allocate huge memory
space using complicated way.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
