Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55AFB570.4050808@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/22/15 6:58 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> Not sure what Jim meant. Maybe he meant to be aware of when spilling to >> disk happens? Obviously, things become slower, so maybe you need to >> consider it for progress reporting purposes. >> > > Perhaps the m_w_m determines how many dead tuples lazy_scan_heap() can > keep track of before doing a lazy_vacuum_indexes() + > lazy_vacuum_heap() round. Smaller the m_w_m, more the number of index > scans, slower the progress? Yes. Any percent completion calculation will have to account for the case of needing multiple passes through all the indexes. Each dead tuple requires 6 bytes (IIRC) of maintenance work mem. So if you're deleting 5M rows with m_w_m=1MB you should be getting many passes through the indexes. Studying the output of VACUUM VERBOSE will confirm that (or just throw a temporary WARNING in the path where we start the scan). -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: