On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:34 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:00 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > I think that you're right. However, in practice it isn't harmful
> > because has_dead_tuples is only used when "all_visible = true", and
> > only to detect corruption (which should never happen). I think that it
> > should be fixed as part of this work, though.
>
> Currently the first callsite that calls the new
> lazy_vacuum_table_and_indexes() function in the patch
> ("skip_index_vacuum.patch") skips index vacuuming in exactly the same
> way as the second and final lazy_vacuum_table_and_indexes() call site.
> Don't we need to account for maintenance_work_mem in some way?
>
> lazy_vacuum_table_and_indexes() should probably not skip index
> vacuuming when we're close to exceeding the space allocated for the
> LVDeadTuples array. Maybe we should not skip when
> vacrelstats->dead_tuples->num_tuples is greater than 50% of
> dead_tuples->max_tuples? Of course, this would only need to be
> considered when lazy_vacuum_table_and_indexes() is only called once
> for the entire VACUUM operation (otherwise we have far too little
> maintenance_work_mem/dead_tuples->max_tuples anyway).Doesn't it actually mean we consider how many dead *tuples* we collected during a vacuum? I’m not sure how important the fact we’re close to exceeding the maintenance_work_mem space. Suppose maintenance_work_mem is 64MB, we will not skip both index vacuum and heap vacuum if the number of dead tuples exceeds 5592404 (we can collect 11184809 tuples with 64MB memory). But those tuples could be concentrated in a small number of blocks, for example in a very large table case. It seems to contradict the current strategy that we want to skip vacuum if relatively few blocks are modified. No? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
