Hi,
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 14:49, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> Hi! I could try to check it with the test, but I want to ask you about
> details, because I'm not sure that I completely understand the test case.
>
> You mean that we need to have two backends and on one of them we deleted
> the tuples before vacuum called the other, do you?
>
I think triggering a parallel vacuum is enough. I am able to see the
differences with the following:
You can apply the attached diff file to see the differences between
the previous version and the patched version. Then, run this query:
CREATE TABLE vacuum_fix (aid int, bid int, cid int) with
(autovacuum_enabled=false);
INSERT INTO vacuum_fix SELECT *, *, * FROM generate_series(1, 1000000);
CREATE INDEX a_idx on vacuum_fix (aid);
CREATE INDEX b_idx on vacuum_fix (bid);
CREATE INDEX c_idx on vacuum_fix (cid);
VACUUM vacuum_fix;
UPDATE vacuum_fix SET aid = aid + 1;
VACUUM (VERBOSE, PARALLEL 2) vacuum_fix ;
After that I saw:
INFO: vacuuming "test.public.vacuum_fix"
INFO: launched 2 parallel vacuum workers for index vacuuming (planned: 2)
INFO: finished vacuuming "test.public.vacuum_fix": index scans: 1
...
...
buffer usage: 29343 hits, 9580 misses in the previous version, 14165
misses in the patched version, 14262 dirtied
Patched version counts 14165 misses but the previous version counts
9580 misses in this specific example.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
