Re: Vacuum time degrading

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum time degrading
Date: 2005-04-05 16:59:44
Message-ID: 14630.1112720384@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> Ok, now I follow. Taking the biggest indexes:

> The weekend before:
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 393961361 row
> versions in 2435100 pages
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 393934394 row
> versions in 1499853 pages

> After reindex:
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 401798357 row
> versions in 1765613 pages
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 401787237 row
> versions in 1322974 pages

OK, that's certainly not a factor-of-four difference in size, so I'm
now convinced you're right: bringing the index into physical order is
having a big impact on the runtime.

From a development standpoint, that suggests a couple of TODO items:
* Look harder at whether VACUUM can scan the index in physical instead
of logical order.
* See whether ordinary btree maintenance (ie page splits) can do
anything to maintain/improve the physical ordering of the index.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2005-04-05 17:03:00 Re: contrib/dbsize
Previous Message Wes 2005-04-05 16:47:01 Re: Vacuum time degrading

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-04-05 18:47:50 REINDEX ALL
Previous Message Wes 2005-04-05 16:47:01 Re: Vacuum time degrading