Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26314.1228751836@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > 2008/12/8 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>: >> How did you measure that? > it's simple test > create table x(a integer, b integer); > insert into x select i, i from generate_series(1,1000) g(i); > and then vacuum on 8.3.5 and vacuum on current CVS HEAD. Hmm. There is something else going on here besides the pg_proc scan. Even after patching that, the elapsed time for a small-table VACUUM is typically much longer than in 8.3. But what's really interesting is that if you repeat it multiple times in quick succession, HEAD's time jumps all over the place whereas 8.3 is relatively stable: regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 61.809 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 10.743 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 40.615 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 10.015 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 53.364 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 9.324 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 43.339 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 9.336 ms regression=# vacuum x; VACUUM Time: 53.271 ms 8.3's time is consistently between 9 and 12 msec on same box and same data. Anyone have an idea what's causing this? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: