On 5 September 2016 at 15:50, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 3 September 2016 at 04:25, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The patch also makes vacuum free the dead_tuples before starting >>> truncation. It didn't seem necessary to hold onto it beyond that >>> point, and it might help give the OS more cache, especially if work >>> mem is configured very high to avoid multiple index scans. >> >> How long does that part ever take? Is there any substantial gain from this? >> >> Lets discuss that as a potential second patch. > > In the test case I mentioned, it takes longer than the vacuum part itself.
Please provide a test case and timings so we can see what's happening. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
