Simple improvements to freespace allocation
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Simple improvements to freespace allocation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMLQV9iu=NnHhTmbEH3AAVngJmbEkF6cyujT2wEi47g37Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Simple improvements to freespace allocation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Current freesapce code gives a new block insert target (NBT) from anywhere in table. That isn't very useful with bigger tables and it would be useful to be able to specify different algorithms for producing NBTs. ALTER TABLE foo WITH (freespace = XXXX); Three simple and useful models come to mind * CONCURRENT This is the standard/current model. Naming it likes this emphasises why we pick NBTs in the way we do. * PACK We want the table to be smaller, so rather than run a VACUUM FULL we want to force the table to choose an NBT at start of table, even at the expense of concurrency. By avoiding putting new data at the top of the table we allow the possibility that VACUUM will shrink table size. This is same as current except we always reset the FSM pointer to zero and re-seek from there. This takes some time to have an effect, but is much less invasive than VACUUM FULL. * RECENT For large tables that are append-mostly use case it would be easier to prefer NBTs from the last two 1GB segments of a table, allowing them to be more easily cached. This is same as current except when we wrap we don't go to block 0 we go to first block of penultimate (max - 1) segment. For tables <= 2 segments this is no change from existing algorithm. For larger tables it would focus updates/inserts into a much reduced and yet still large area and allow better cacheing. These are small patches. ...other possibilities, though more complex are... * IN-MEMORY A large table may only have some of its blocks in memory. It would be useful to force a NBT to be a block already in shared_buffers IFF a table is above a certain size (use same threshold as seq scans, i.e. 25% of shared_buffers). That may be difficult to achieve in practice, so not sure about this one. Like it? Any ideas? We might also allow a custom NBT policy though allowing user code at that point could be dangerous. Thoughts? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: