Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-02-28 kell 01:04, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:05:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Moreover, you haven't pointed to any strong reason to adopt this
> >> methodology. It'd only be a win when vacuuming pretty small numbers
> >> of tuples, which is not the design center for VACUUM, and isn't likely
> >> to be the case in practice either if you're using autovacuum. If you're
> >> removing say 1% of the tuples, you are likely to be hitting every index
> >> page to do it, meaning that the scan approach will be significantly
> >> *more* efficient than retail lookups.
>
> > The use case is any large table that sees updates in 'hot spots'.
> > Anything that's based on current time is a likely candidate, since often
> > most activity only concerns the past few days of data.
>
> I'm unmoved by that argument too. If the updates are clustered then
> another effect kicks in: the existing btbulkdelete approach is able to
> collapse all the deletions on a given index page into one WAL record.
> With retail deletes it'd be difficult if not impossible to do that,
> resulting in a significant increase in WAL traffic during a vacuum.
> (We know it's significant because we saw a good improvement when we
> fixed btbulkdelete to work that way, instead of issuing a separate
> WAL record per deleted index entry as it once did.)
In the "big table with hotspots" case, I doubt that the win from
btbulkdelete will outweight having to scan 100000 index pages to get to
the 30 or 50 that can be bulkdeleted.
--------------
Hannu
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
