Skip to content

P
Postgres FD Implementation
Commit 60b941f9 authored by Bruce Momjian's avatar Bruce Momjian
Browse files
Options

Update TODO detail files.

parent acad203c
Show whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
Showing with 1647 additions and 5 deletions
doc/TODO.detail/replication
View file @ 60b941f9
......@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 10:01:18 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA11295
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:01:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id KAA20310 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:39:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA61760;
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:31:13 -0500 (EST)
......@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 18:31:03 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA26244
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id TAA12730 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:30:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA57851;
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:23:31 -0500 (EST)
......@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Dec 24 21:31:10 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA02578
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:31:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id WAA16641 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:18:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA89135;
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:11:12 -0500 (EST)
......@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sun Dec 26 08:31:09 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA17976
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:31:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id JAA23337 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA90738;
Sun, 26 Dec 1999 09:21:58 -0500 (EST)
......@@ -909,7 +909,7 @@ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Thu Dec 30 08:01:09 1999
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA10317
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:01:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id IAA02365 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:37:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA87902;
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:34:22 -0500 (EST)
......@@ -1000,5 +1000,561 @@ I do like your approach: triggers and a separate process. (Maintainable!! :)
Anyway, just figured I'd throw in a few suggestions,
Duane
************
From owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org Sun Jan 2 23:01:38 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA16274
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id XAA02655 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:45:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13828;
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:40:47 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@hub.org)
Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:38:34 +0000 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13624
for pgsql-patches-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:37:36 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13560
for <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:37:02 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca)
Received: from Videotron.ca ([207.253.210.234])
by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8)
with ESMTP id <0FNQ000TEST8VI@falla.videotron.net> for pgsql-patches@postgresql.org; Sun,
2 Jan 2000 23:37:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 23:39:23 -0500
From: Philippe Marchesseault <P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca>
Subject: [PATCHES] Distributed PostgreSQL!
To: pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org
Message-id: <387027FB.EB88D757@Videotron.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.11 i586)
Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)"
X-Accept-Language: en
Sender: owner-pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org
Precedence: bulk
Status: ORr
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi all!
Here is a small patch to make postgres a distributed database. By
distributed I mean that you can have the same copy of the database on N
different machines and keep them all in sync.
It does not improve performances unless you distribute your clients in a
sensible manner. It does not allow you to do parallel selects.
The support page is : pages.infinit.net/daemon and soon to be in
english.
The patch was tested with RedHat Linux 6.0 on Intel with kernel 2.2.11.
Only two machines where used so i'm not competely sure that it works
with more than two. -But it should-
I would like to know if somebody else is interested in this otherwise
i'm probably not gonna keep it growing. So please reply me to my e-mail
(P.Marchesso@videotron.ca) to give me an idea of the amount of people
interested in this.
Thanks all.
Philippe Marchesseault
--
It's not the size of the dog in the fight,
but the size of the fight in the dog.
-Archie Griffen
--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)
Content-type: application/octet-stream; name=replicator-0.1.tgz
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=replicator-0.1.tgz
Content-transfer-encoding: base64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--Boundary_(ID_GeYGc69fE1/bkYLTPwOGFg)--
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon Jan 3 13:47:07 2000
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA23987
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA03234;
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:39:56 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:39:49 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03050
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:38:50 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from ara.zf.jcu.cz (zakkr@ara.zf.jcu.cz [160.217.161.4])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02975
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:38:05 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from zakkr@zf.jcu.cz)
Received: from localhost (zakkr@localhost)
by ara.zf.jcu.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA19297;
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:23:35 +0100
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:23:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
To: P.Marchesso@videotron.ca
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: [HACKERS] replicator
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000103194931.19115A-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Status: OR
Hi,
I look at your (Philippe's) replicator, but I don't good understand
your replication concept.
node1: SQL --IPC--> node-broker
|
TCP/IP
|
master-node --IPC--> replikator
| | |
libpq
| | |
node2 node..n
(Is it right picture?)
If I good understand, all nodes make connection to master node and data
replicate "replicator" on this master node. But it (master node) is very
critical space in this concept - If master node not work replication for
*all* nodes is lost. Hmm.. but I want use replication for high available
applications...
IMHO is problem with node registration / authentification on master node.
Why concept is not more upright? As:
SQL --IPC--> node-replicator
| | |
via libpq send data to all nodes with
current client/backend auth.
(not exist any master node, all nodes have connection to all nodes)
Use replicator as external proces and copy data from SQL to this replicator
via IPC is (your) very good idea.
Karel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
Docs: http://docs.linux.cz (big docs archive)
Kim Project: http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/kim/ (process manager)
FTP: ftp://ftp2.zf.jcu.cz/users/zakkr/ (C/ncurses/PgSQL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 4 10:31:01 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA17522
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:31:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.3 $) with ESMTP id LAA01541 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09992;
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:18:07 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:17:58 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09856
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:17:17 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org)
Received: from ara.zf.jcu.cz (zakkr@ara.zf.jcu.cz [160.217.161.4])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09763
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:16:43 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from zakkr@zf.jcu.cz)
Received: from localhost (zakkr@localhost)
by ara.zf.jcu.cz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA31673;
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:02:06 +0100
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:02:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
To: Philippe Marchesseault <P.Marchesso@Videotron.ca>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] replicator
In-Reply-To: <38714B6F.2DECAEC0@Videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000104162226.27234D-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Status: OR
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Philippe Marchesseault wrote:
> So it could become:
>
> SQL --IPC--> node-replicator
> | | |
> via TCP send statements to each node
> replicator (on local node)
> |
> via libpq send data to
> current (local) backend.
>
> > (not exist any master node, all nodes have connection to all nodes)
>
> Exactly, if the replicator dies only the node dies, everything else keeps
> working.
Hi,
I a little explore replication conception on Oracle and Sybase (in manuals).
(Know anyone some interesting links or publication about it?)
Firstly, I sure, untimely is write replication to PgSQL now, if we
haven't exactly conception for it. It need more suggestion from more
developers. We need firstly answers for next qestion:
1/ How replication concept choose for PG?
2/ How manage transaction for nodes? (and we need define any
replication protocol for this)
3/ How involve replication in current PG transaction code?
My idea (dream:-) is replication that allow you use full read-write on all
nodes and replication which use current transaction method in PG - not is
difference between more backends on one host or more backend on more hosts
- it makes "global transaction consistency".
Now is transaction manage via ICP (one host), my dream is alike manage
this transaction, but between more host via TCP. (And make optimalization
for this - transfer commited data/commands only.)
Any suggestion?
-------------------
Note:
(transaction oriented replication)
Sybase - I. model (only one node is read-write)
primary SQL data (READ-WRITE)
|
replication agent (transaction log monitoring)
|
primary distribution server (one or more repl. servers)
| / | \
| nodes (READ-ONLY)
|
secondary dist. server
/ | \
nodes (READ-ONLY)
If primary SQL is read-write and the other nodes *read-only*
=> system good work if connection is disable (data are save to
replication-log and if connection is available log is write
to node).
Sybase - II. model (all nodes read-write)
SQL data 1 --->--+ NODE I.
| |
^ |
| replication agent 1 (transaction log monitoring)
V |
| V
| |
replication server 1
|
^
V
|
replication server 2 NODE II.
| |
^ +-<-->--- SQL data 2
| |
replcation agent 2 -<--
Sorry, I not sure if I re-draw previous picture total good..
Karel
************
doc/TODO.detail/vacuum 0 → 100644
View file @ 60b941f9
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 19:08:30 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:13:40 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001181821.NAA02988@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 1479
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement REINDEX command.
> >
> > REINDEX operation itself is available everywhere and
> > I've thought about applying it to VACUUM.
>
> That is a good idea. Vacuuming of indexes can be very slow.
>
> > .
> > My plan is as follows.
> >
> > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > and if index recreation is specified.
>
> Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> vacuum,
Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
vacuum.
New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
2) Does shrink index files
But in case of abort/crash
1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> > Now I'm inclined to use relhasindex of pg_class to
> > validate/invalidate indexes of a table at once.
>
> There are a few calls to CatalogIndexInsert() that know the
> system table they
> are using and know it has indexes, so it does not check that field. You
> could add cases for that.
>
I think there aren't so many places to check.
I would examine it if my idea is OK.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 19:15:27 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:13:40 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001181821.NAA02988@candle.pha.pa.us>
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 1493
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement REINDEX command.
> >
> > REINDEX operation itself is available everywhere and
> > I've thought about applying it to VACUUM.
>
> That is a good idea. Vacuuming of indexes can be very slow.
>
> > .
> > My plan is as follows.
> >
> > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > and if index recreation is specified.
>
> Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> vacuum,
Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
vacuum.
New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
2) Does shrink index files
But in case of abort/crash
1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> > Now I'm inclined to use relhasindex of pg_class to
> > validate/invalidate indexes of a table at once.
>
> There are a few calls to CatalogIndexInsert() that know the
> system table they
> are using and know it has indexes, so it does not check that field. You
> could add cases for that.
>
I think there aren't so many places to check.
I would examine it if my idea is OK.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 19:57:21 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190150.UAA11421@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000201bf621a$6b9baf20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 10:13:40 am"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:50:50 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 2329
> > > Add a new option to force index recreation in vacuum
> > > and if index recreation is specified.
> >
> > Couldn't we auto-recreate indexes based on the number of tuples moved by
> > vacuum,
>
> Yes,we could probably do it. But I'm not sure the availability of new
> vacuum.
>
> New vacuum would give us a big advantage that
> 1) Much faster than current if vacuum remove/moves many tuples.
> 2) Does shrink index files
>
> But in case of abort/crash
> 1) couldn't choose index scan for the table
> 2) unique constraints of the table would be lost
>
> I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
traversing the index during the rename().
Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
old copy of the index.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From pgman Tue Jan 18 20:04:11 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman>
Message-Id: <200001190204.VAA11990@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <200001190150.UAA11421@candle.pha.pa.us> from Bruce Momjian at "Jan
18, 2000 08:50:50 pm"
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0500 (EST)
CC: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Content-Length: 2434
> > I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
>
> That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
> vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
>
> In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
> zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
>
> In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> traversing the index during the rename().
>
> Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
>
> In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> old copy of the index.
Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
important use of reindex.
Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
If we don't do that and vacuum fails, what state is the table left in?
If we don't update the index for every tuple, the index is invalid in a
vacuum failure. rename() is not going to help us here. It keeps the
old index around, but the index is invalid anyway, right?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 20:18:48 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:23:55 +0900
Message-ID: <000801bf6224$3bfdd9a0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001190204.VAA11990@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 2308
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
>
> > > I don't know how people estimate this disadvantage.
> >
> > That's why I was recommending rename(). The actual window of
> > vunerability goes from perhaps hours to fractions of a second.
> >
> > In fact, if I understand this right, you could make the vulerability
> > zero by just performing the rename as one operation.
> >
> > In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> > table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> > read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> > with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> > during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> > access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> > traversing the index during the rename().
> >
> > Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> > is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> > use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> > one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> > change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
> >
> > In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> > table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> > old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> > the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> > this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> > old copy of the index.
>
> Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
> meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> important use of reindex.
>
> Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
>
Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 20:53:49 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190245.VAA13040@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000801bf6224$3bfdd9a0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 11:23:55 am"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:45:27 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 2480
> > > In fact, for REINDEX cases where you don't have a lock on the entire
> > > table as you do in vacuum, you could reindex the table with a simple
> > > read-lock on the base table and index, and move the new index into place
> > > with the users seeing no change. Only people traversing the index
> > > during the change would have a problem. You just need an exclusive
> > > access on the index for the duration of the rename() so no one is
> > > traversing the index during the rename().
> > >
> > > Destroying the index and recreating opens a large time span that there
> > > is no index, and you have to jury-rig something so people don't try to
> > > use the index. With rename() you just put the new index in place with
> > > one operation. Just don't let people traverse the index during the
> > > change. The pointers to the heap tuples is the same in both indexes.
> > >
> > > In fact, with WAL, we will allow multiple physical files for the same
> > > table by appending the table oid to the file name. In this case, the
> > > old index could be deleted by rename, and people would continue to use
> > > the old index until they deleted the open file pointers. Not sure how
> > > this works in practice because new tuples would not be inserted into the
> > > old copy of the index.
> >
> > Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of rename() are
> > meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> > important use of reindex.
> >
> > Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> > handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> > it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
> >
>
> Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 18 21:15:24 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001190308.WAA13965@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
In-Reply-To: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> from Hiroshi Inoue at
"Jan 19, 2000 12:10:32 pm"
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:08:25 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 50
[ Charset UNKNOWN-8BIT unsupported, skipping... ]
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Tue Jan 18 21:05:23 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:10:32 +0900
Message-ID: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200001190245.VAA13040@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 1509
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > >
> > > Maybe I am all wrong here. Maybe most of the advantage of
> rename() are
> > > meaningless with reindex using during vacuum, which is the most
> > > important use of reindex.
> > >
> > > Let's look at index using during vacuum. Right now, how does vacuum
> > > handle indexes when it moves a tuple? Does it do each index update as
> > > it moves a tuple? Is that why it is so slow?
> > >
> >
> > Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> > table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> > As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
>
> OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
> moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
> new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
> lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
> of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
>
I heard from someone that old vacuum had been like so.
Probably 2x disk space for big tables was a big disadvantage.
In addition,rename(),unlink(),mv aren't preferable for transaction
control as far as I see. We couldn't avoid inconsistency using
those OS functions.
We have to wait the change of relation file naming if copying
vacuum is needed.
Under the spec we need not rename(),mv etc.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From dms@wplus.net Wed Jan 19 15:30:40 2000
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Message-ID: <38862C9D.C2151E4E@wplus.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:29:01 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
References: <000f01bf622a$bf423940$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
Content-Length: 1204
[ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Yes,I believe so. It's necessary to keep consistency between heap
> > > table and indexes even in case of abort/crash.
> > > As far as I see,it has been a big charge for vacuum.
> >
> > OK, how about making a copy of the heap table before starting vacuum,
> > moving all the tuples in that copy, create new index, and then move the
> > new heap and indexes over the old version. We already have an exclusive
> > lock on the table. That would be 100% reliable, with the disadvantage
> > of using 2x the disk space. Seems like a big win.
> >
>
> I heard from someone that old vacuum had been like so.
> Probably 2x disk space for big tables was a big disadvantage.
Yes, It is critical.
How about sequence like this:
* Drop indices (keeping somewhere index descriptions)
* vacuuming table
* recreate indices
If something crash, user have been noticed
to re-run vacuum or recreate indices by hand
when system restarts.
I use script like described above for vacuuming
- it really increase vacuum performance for large table.
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From dms@wplus.net Wed Jan 19 15:42:49 2000
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Message-ID: <38862F86.20328BD3@wplus.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:41:26 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum
References: <200001192132.QAA26048@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 431
[ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> We need two things:
>
> auto-create index on startup
IMHO, It have to be controlled by user, because creating large index
can take a number of hours. Sometimes it's better to live without
indices
at all, and then build it by hand after workday end.
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 00:34:56 2000
Message-ID: <3887FC19.80305217@krs.ru>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700
From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: ru, en
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
References: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 557
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> With no index, I got:
> 43 seconds for a vacuum
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
Wi/wo -F ?
Vadim
************
From vadim@krs.ru Fri Jan 21 00:26:33 2000
Sender: root@sunpine.krs.ru
Message-ID: <3887FC19.80305217@krs.ru>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:26:33 +0700
From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE i386)
X-Accept-Language: ru, en
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
References: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 543
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> With no index, I got:
> 43 seconds for a vacuum
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
Wi/wo -F ?
Vadim
From Inoue@tpf.co.jp Fri Jan 21 00:40:35 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>,
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] vacuum timings
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:46:15 +0900
Message-ID: <000201bf63db$36cdae20$2801007e@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <200001210543.AAA13592@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Length: 737
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
>
> I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> 78 seconds for a vacuum
vc_vaconeind() is called once
> 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
vc_vaconeind() is called twice
Hmmm,vc_vaconeind() takes pretty long time even if it does little.
> 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
How about half of the rows deleted case ?
It would take longer time.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 12:00:49 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <3641.948433911@sss.pgh.pa.us> from Tom Lane at "Jan 21, 2000 00:51:51
am"
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500 (EST)
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 1437
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I loaded 10,000,000 rows into CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); Table is
> > 400MB and index is 160MB.
>
> > With index on the single in4 column, I got:
> > 78 seconds for a vacuum
> > 121 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> > 662 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> > With no index, I got:
> > 43 seconds for a vacuum
> > 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting a single row
> > 43 seconds for vacuum after deleting the entire table
>
> > I find this quite interesting.
>
> How long does it take to create the index on your setup --- ie,
> if vacuum did a drop/create index, would it be competitive?
OK, new timings with -F enabled:
index no index
519 same load
247 " first vacuum
40 " other vacuums
1222 X index creation
90 X first vacuum
80 X other vacuums
<1 90 delete one row
121 38 vacuum after delete 1 row
346 344 delete all rows
440 44 first vacuum
20 <1 other vacuums(index is still same size)
Conclusions:
o indexes never get smaller
o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
What other conclusions can be made?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From scrappy@hub.org Fri Jan 21 12:45:38 2000
X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:45:34 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211443480.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
Content-Length: 787
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, new timings with -F enabled:
>
> index no index
> 519 same load
> 247 " first vacuum
> 40 " other vacuums
>
> 1222 X index creation
> 90 X first vacuum
> 80 X other vacuums
>
> <1 90 delete one row
> 121 38 vacuum after delete 1 row
>
> 346 344 delete all rows
> 440 44 first vacuum
> 20 <1 other vacuums(index is still same size)
>
> Conclusions:
>
> o indexes never get smaller
this one, I thought, was a known? if I remember right, Vadim changed it
so that space was reused, but index never shrunk in size ... no?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 13:06:35 2000
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:06:31 -0500
Message-ID: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 391
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
> o indexes never get smaller
Which we knew...
> o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some
fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases.
regards, tom lane
From dms@wplus.net Fri Jan 21 13:51:27 2000
X-Real-To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Message-ID: <3888B822.28F79A1F@wplus.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:48:50 +0300
From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us> <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 585
[ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Conclusions:
> > o indexes never get smaller
>
> Which we knew...
>
> > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
>
> Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
slowly.
Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
(FreeBSD 3.3)
--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms@wplus.net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri Jan 21 14:04:08 2000
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200001211954.OAA15772@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <3888B822.28F79A1F@wplus.net> from Dmitry Samersoff at "Jan 21,
2000 10:48:50 pm"
To: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:54:21 -0500 (EST)
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)]
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Content-Length: 1093
[Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Conclusions:
> > > o indexes never get smaller
> >
> > Which we knew...
> >
> > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
> >
> > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
>
> I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
> slowly.
> Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
> (FreeBSD 3.3)
OK, we are researching what things can be done to improve this. We are
toying with:
lock table for less duration, or read lock
creating another copy of heap/indexes, and rename() over old files
improving heap vacuum speed
improving index vacuum speed
moving analyze out of vacuum
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
************
From scrappy@hub.org Fri Jan 21 14:12:16 2000
X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:12:25 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-Reply-To: <200001211954.OAA15772@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
Content-Length: 2345
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > Conclusions:
> > > > o indexes never get smaller
> > >
> > > Which we knew...
> > >
> > > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
> > >
> > > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
> >
> > I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
> > slowly.
> > Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
> > (FreeBSD 3.3)
>
> OK, we are researching what things can be done to improve this. We are
> toying with:
>
> lock table for less duration, or read lock
if there is some way that we can work around the bug that I believe Tom
found with removing the lock altogether (ie. makig use of MVCC), I think
that would be the best option ... if not possible, at least get things
down to a table lock vs the whole database?
a good example is the udmsearch that we are using on the site ... it uses
multiple tables to store the dictionary, each representing words of X size
... if I'm searching on a 4 letter word, and the whole database is locked
while it is working on the dictionary with 8 letter words, I'm sitting
there idle ... at least if we only locked the 8 letter table, everyone not
doing 8 letter searches can go on their merry way ...
Slightly longer vacuum's, IMHO, are acceptable if, to the end users, its
as transparent as possible ... locking per table would be slightly slower,
I think, because once a table is finished, the next table would need to
have an exclusive lock put on it before starting, so you'd have to
possibly wait for that...?
> creating another copy of heap/indexes, and rename() over old files
sounds to me like introducing a large potential for error here ...
> moving analyze out of vacuum
I think that should be done anyway ... if we ever get to the point that
we're able to re-use rows in tables, then that would eliminate the
immediate requirement for vacuum, but still retain a requirement for a
periodic analyze ... no?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 16:02:07 2000
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001211607080.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:12:25 -0400"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:02:06 -0500
Message-ID: <9694.948492126@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 1274
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> lock table for less duration, or read lock
> if there is some way that we can work around the bug that I believe Tom
> found with removing the lock altogether (ie. makig use of MVCC), I think
> that would be the best option ... if not possible, at least get things
> down to a table lock vs the whole database?
Huh? VACUUM only requires an exclusive lock on the table it is
currently vacuuming; there's no database-wide lock.
Even a single-table exclusive lock is bad, of course, if it's a large
table that's critical to a 24x7 application. Bruce was talking about
the possibility of having VACUUM get just a write lock on the table;
other backends could still read it, but not write it, during the vacuum
process. That'd be a considerable step forward for 24x7 applications,
I think.
It looks like that could be done if we rewrote the table as a new file
(instead of compacting-in-place), but there's a problem when it comes
time to rename the new files into place. At that point you'd need to
get an exclusive lock to ensure all the readers are out of the table too
--- and upgrading from a plain lock to an exclusive lock is a well-known
recipe for deadlocks. Not sure if this can be solved.
regards, tom lane
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Fri Jan 21 22:50:34 2000
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200001211751.MAA12106@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
message dated "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:51:53 -0500"
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:13 -0500
Message-ID: <19678.948516613@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 1302
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
> o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
BTW, I did some profiling of CREATE INDEX this evening (quite
unintentionally actually; I was interested in COPY IN, but the pg_dump
script I used as driver happened to create some indexes too). I was
startled to discover that 60% of the runtime of CREATE INDEX is spent in
_bt_invokestrat (which is called from tuplesort.c's comparetup_index,
and exists only to figure out which specific comparison routine to call).
Of this, a whopping 4% was spent in the useful subroutine, int4gt. All
the rest went into lookup and validation checks that by rights should be
done once per index creation, not once per comparison.
In short: a fairly straightforward bit of optimization will eliminate
circa 50% of the CPU time consumed by CREATE INDEX. All we need is to
figure out where to cache the lookup results. The optimization would
improve insertions and lookups in indexes, as well, if we can cache
the lookup results in those scenarios.
This was for a table small enough that tuplesort.c could do the sort
entirely in memory, so I'm sure the gains would be smaller for a large
table that requires a disk-based sort. Still, it seems worth looking
into...
regards, tom lane
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Jan 22 02:31:03 2000
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:15:37 +0900
Message-ID: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Length: 49
[ Charset iso-2022-jp unsupported, skipping... ]
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Sat Jan 22 10:31:02 2000
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
In-reply-to: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
References: <NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
message dated "Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:15:37 +0900"
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:11:25 -0500
Message-ID: <20566.948557485@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 186
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case.
Or equivalently, vacuum after updating all the rows.
regards, tom lane
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment