RE: [HACKERS] vacuum process size

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:20 AM
> To: t-ishii@sra.co.jp
> Cc: Mike Mascari; Hiroshi Inoue; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size 
> 
> 
> I have been looking some more at the vacuum-process-size issue, and
> I am having a hard time understanding why the VPageList data structure
> is the critical one.  As far as I can see, there should be at most one
> pointer in it for each disk page of the relation.  OK, you were
> vacuuming a table with something like a quarter million pages, so
> the end size of the VPageList would have been something like a megabyte,
> and given the inefficient usage of repalloc() in the original code,
> a lot more space than that would have been wasted as the list grew.
> So doubling the array size at each step is a good change.
> 
> But there are a lot more tuples than pages in most relations.
> 
> I see two lists with per-tuple data in vacuum.c, "vtlinks" in
> vc_scanheap and "vtmove" in vc_rpfheap, that are both being grown with
> essentially the same technique of repalloc() after every N entries.
> I'm not entirely clear on how many tuples get put into each of these
> lists, but it sure seems like in ordinary circumstances they'd be much
> bigger space hogs than any of the three VPageList lists.
>

AFAIK,both vtlinks and vtmove are NULL if vacuum is executed
without concurrent transactions.
They won't be so big unless loooong concurrent transactions exist.
Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp