Re: MVCC overheads - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: MVCC overheads
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQ_6bXLa3QFE-Q-yF-=-M8mXbyxCzXRSs5q-vpNa8UQ_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MVCC overheads  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: MVCC overheads  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Sure, but we could *also* do it separately, splitting VACUUMs tasks of
>> tuple freezing, page compaction, and index entry removal each into
>> separate tasks.
>
> Uh ... wouldn't that tend to make things worse?  The knocks on VACUUM are
> too much I/O and too much latency for cleanup, and I can't see how
> splitting it does anything good on either score.

Has anyone ever done any kind of write-up of the "TED" design that was
discussed during FOSDEM (I hope I recall the name it was given
correctly)? Apparently that's something that's been discussed a few
times among senior community members, and I think it has promise.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: MVCC overheads
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <