Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1197569564.4255.1855.camel@ebony.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh TOAST data ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of fresh
TOAST data
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 11:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:11 AM, in message > <1197562283.4255.1829.camel@ebony.site>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > > >> The data was inserted through a Java program using a prepared > >> statement with no indexes on the table. The primary key was then > >> added, and now I've started a vacuum. The new table wound up being > >> the first big table vacuumed, and I noticed something odd. Even > >> though there have been no rollbacks, updates, or deletes on this > >> table, the vacuum is writing as much as it is reading while dealing > >> with the TOAST data. > > > > Writing hint bits. Annoying isn't it? :-( > > Is there anything in the documentation that mentions this pattern > of activity? Since I started clearing the WAL file tails before > compression, it has surprised me how much WAL file activity there > is from the nightly vacuum. I had assumed that some part of this > was freezing old tuples, but that didn't seem to exactly match the > pattern of activity. If the hint bit changes are written to the > WAL, I think this explains it. They're not. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: