Re: MVCC overheads

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Sure, but we could *also* do it separately, splitting VACUUMs tasks of
>> tuple freezing, page compaction, and index entry removal each into
>> separate tasks.
>
> Uh ... wouldn't that tend to make things worse?  The knocks on VACUUM are
> too much I/O and too much latency for cleanup, and I can't see how
> splitting it does anything good on either score.

Has anyone ever done any kind of write-up of the "TED" design that was
discussed during FOSDEM (I hope I recall the name it was given
correctly)? Apparently that's something that's been discussed a few
times among senior community members, and I think it has promise.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan