Manfred Koizar wrote:
> [ still brainstorming ... ]
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:16:50 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> Whenever a backend encounters a dead tuple it inserts a reference to
> >> its page into the RSM.
> >
> >This assumes that backends will visit dead tuples with sign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Succeeded) writes:
> The best for me by far, is to get the OS to *not* cache stuff. As
> long as the database uses the information it inherently has available,
> it can make far more effective use of the same amount of memory the OS
> would have used to cache the whole fil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > better. AFAICS Vivek's problem is that it is hard enough to hold a
> > good part of the working set in the cache, and still his disks are
> > saturated. Now a VACUUM not only
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> We have had some people looking at improved buffer management
> algorithms; LRU-2 or something smarter would help. I dunno whether
> we can dissuade the kernel from flushing its cache though.
Using open/read/write system calls, you can't. You can always use
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good point. What about: Whenever a backend *deletes* a tuple it
> inserts a reference to its page into the RSM? Then an entry in the
> RSM doesn't necessarily mean that the referenced page has reclaimable
> space, but it would still be valueable infor
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> better. AFAICS Vivek's problem is that it is hard enough to hold a
> good part of the working set in the cache, and still his disks are
> saturated. Now a VACUUM not only adds one more process to disk I/O
> contention, but also makes sure that the work
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:56:02 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Conceivably it could be a win, though,
>if you could do frequent "vacuum decent"s and only a full-scan vacuum
>once in awhile (once a day maybe).
That's what I had in mind; similar to the current situation where you
can avoid
[ still brainstorming ... ]
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:16:50 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Whenever a backend encounters a dead tuple it inserts a reference to
>> its page into the RSM.
>
>This assumes that backends will visit dead tuples with significant
>probability. I doubt that as
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:39:26 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But I think the real point here is that there's no reason to think that
>doing tuple deletion on-the-fly in foreground transactions is superior
>to doing it in background with a vacuum process. You're taking what
>should be n
