Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoB3RGz_VFZ9tP0qEOB0cyyqPufk8Xgy54i11TsQw8m-MQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:01 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 1/10/17 11:23 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Does this work negate the other work to allow VACUUM to use > >>>> 1GB memory? >>> >>> Partly yes. Because memory space for dead TIDs needs to be allocated >>> in DSM before vacuum worker launches, parallel lazy vacuum cannot use >>> such a variable amount of memory as that work does. But in >>> non-parallel lazy vacuum, that work would be effective. We might be >>> able to do similar thing using DSA but I'm not sure that is better. >> >> I think it would work well with DSA as well. >> >> Just instead of having a single segment list, you'd have one per worker. >> >> Since workers work on disjoint tid sets, that shouldn't pose a problem. >> >> The segment list can be joined together later rather efficiently >> (simple logical joining of the segment pointer arrays) for the index >> scan phases. > > It's been a while since there was any movement on this patch and quite a > few issues have been raised. > > Have you tried the approaches that Claudio suggested? > Yes, it's taking a time to update logic and measurement but it's coming along. Also I'm working on changing deadlock detection. Will post new patch and measurement result. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: