On May 21, 2010, at 23:57 , Josh Berkus wrote:
> From a discussion at dinner at pgcon, I wanted to send this to the list for 
> people to poke holes in it:
> 
> Problem: currently, if your database has a large amount of "cold" data, such 
> as 350GB of 3-year-old sales transactions, in 8.4 vacuum no longer needs to 
> touch it thanks to the visibility map.  However, every freeze_age 
> transactions, very old pages need to be sucked into memory and rewritten just 
> in order to freeze those pages.  This can have a huge impact on system 
> performance, and seems unjustified because the pages are not actually being 
> used.
> 
> Suggested resolution: we would add a 4-byte field to the *page* header which 
> would track the XID wraparound count.  Any page whose wraparound count was 
> not equal to the current one would be considered to have all frozen tuples.  
> This would remove the necessity to read and write old pages just to freeze 
> them, a humongous gain for databases with long data retention horizons, let 
> alone data warehouses.

If I understand this correctly, VACUUM usually only frees old tuples, but never 
increases the oldest xid in the pg_class record. Once that value becomes older 
than freeze_age, VACUUM needs to scan the whole relation to freeze old tuples. 
That results in most of the pages being marked dirty and subsequently being 
written out, causing an IO storm. If, OTOH, the wraparound count was stored in 
the page header, VACUUM would still need to read those pages, but wouldn't need 
to write them out.

Alternatively, VACUUM could freeze a few pages on each run, even if the xids 
are below freeze_age. It could pick those pages randomly, or maybe even prefer 
pages whose tuples have older xmin/xmas values. That would spread the load out 
more evenly, much like we try to spread checkpoints out over the whole 
checkpoint interval.

best regards,
Florian Pflugi


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to