>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:19 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> So one would expect a write-intensive initial vacuum after a
>> PITR-style recovery?
> An interesting issue when running wi
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 1:42 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My feeling is that vacuum's purpose in life is to offload maintenance
> cycles from foreground queries, so we should be happy to have it setting
> all the hint bits.
Absolutely.
> If K
Russell Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given vacuum must then touch every page, is there a win in only setting
> hint bits on pages where vacuum has to do some other work on the page?
> As vacuum is causing significant IO load for data that may not be
> accessed for some time.
Well, if va
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:19 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
What impact would lack of the hint bits have until a vacuum?
Vacuum isn't important here. Its the first idiot to read the data that
gets hit.
Given vacuum must then touch every page, is there a win in only
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:19 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 15:19 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 11:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> If the hint bit changes are written to the WAL ...
> >
> >
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 11:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> If the hint bit changes are written to the WAL ...
>
> They're not.
So one would expect a write-intensive initial vacuum aft
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> We might be able to have bgwriter set hint bits on dirty blocks,
>
> > I don't think that works, because the bgwriter has no access to the
> > catalogs, therefore it cannot e
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> We might be able to have bgwriter set hint bits on dirty blocks,
> I don't think that works, because the bgwriter has no access to the
> catalogs, therefore it cannot examine the page contents. To bgwriter,
> pages are opaque.
An
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 11:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:11 AM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >
> >> The data was inserted through a Java program using a p
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:11 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> The data was inserted through a Java program using a prepared
>> statement with no indexes on the table. The primary key w
Simon Riggs wrote:
> We might be able to have bgwriter set hint bits on dirty blocks, but the
> success of that would depend upon the transit time of blocks through the
> cache, i.e. it might be totally ineffective. So might be just overhead
> for the bgwriter and worse, could divert bgwriter atte
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:39 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:35 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ... although to a naive user it's not clear what
> >> is known at vacuum time
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:35 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... although to a naive user it's not clear what
>> is known at vacuum time that the INSERT into the empty table
>> couldn't have inferred.
>
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... although to a naive user it's not clear what
> is known at vacuum time that the INSERT into the empty table
> couldn't have inferred.
The fact that the INSERT actually committed.
regards, tom lane
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:11 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> The data was inserted through a Java program using a prepared
>> statement with no indexes on the table. The primary key w
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:46 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The data was inserted through a Java program using a prepared
> statement with no indexes on the table. The primary key was then
> added, and now I've started a vacuum. The new table wound up being
> the first big table vacuumed, and I
17 matches
Mail list logo
