On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> I got the following way to get the whether data file is present in the
> DISK or SSD.
>
> 1. Get the device file system that table data file is mapped using the
> following or similar.
>
> df -P "filename" | awk
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 22 July 2015 at 17:11, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Haas
On 3 August 2015 at 17:18, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
That does still leave the prefetch technique, so all is not lost.
Can we see a patch with just prefetch, probably with a simple choice of
stride? Thanks.
I probably won't get back to it this commit fest, so it can be set to
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 22 July 2015 at 17:11, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 22 July 2015 at 14:59, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Urgh. So if we do this, that forever precludes having HOT pruning set
the all-visible bit.
What is the reason why we don't do that already? Surely its
On 22 July 2015 at 17:11, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces
On 7/27/15 10:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
But that's not enough: we also need to know that any tuple that
survived the prune operation (that is, it wasn't redirected or marked
unused) has a new-enough xmin, which isn't tracked anywhere.
Wouldn't that be old-enough xmin?
heap_prune_chain() is
On 22 July 2015 at 14:59, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Urgh. So if we do this, that forever precludes having HOT pruning set
the all-visible bit.
What is the reason why we don't do that already? Surely its a one liner?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
On 7/22/15 11:11 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I guess add an Assert(InRecovery || running_a_vacuum); to
the visibilitymap_set with a comment there, except that I don't know how
to implement running_a_vacuum so that it covers manual vacs as well as
autovac.
static bool RunningVacuum; ? It only needs
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Urgh. So if we do this, that forever precludes having HOT pruning set
the all-visible bit.
I wouldn't say forever, as it would be easy to revert the change if
something more important came along that conflicted with it.
On 2015-07-23 11:06:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't know what to do about the fact that it loses to the VM-bit
based approach, but I think it's a bad bet that we will never care
about setting visibility map bits anyplace other than VACUUM.
+1
A background process that tries to hint all
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during the
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during the
forward portion. Any blocks after both this blkno and after the last
inspected
On 16 July 2015 at 06:51, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
I marked the patch as ready for committer.
The most recent results seem to indicate that the prefetch isn't worth
pursuing, but the vm test is. Can someone repeat the perf tests on
something larger so we can see, when/if
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
One case where this patch can behave differently then current
code is, when before taking Exclusive lock on relation for truncation,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here I attached updated patches,
1) without prefetch logic.
2) with combined vm and prefetch logic.
I think it is better to just
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during the
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during the
forward portion. Any blocks after both this blkno and after the last
inspected
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
I will do some performance tests and send you the
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
I will do some performance tests and send you the results.
Here are the performance results tested on my machine.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
I will do some performance tests and send you the results.
Here are the performance results tested on my machine.
Head vm patchvm+prefetch patch
First vacuum
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
There is still the case of pages which had their visibility bit set
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that implements the vm scan for truncation. It
introduces a variable to hold the last blkno which was skipped during the
forward portion. Any blocks after both this blkno and after the last
inspected
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
As it is currently, it is not clear what purpose nonempty_pages serves.
It's to allow an early exit at vacuumlazy.c:271 in case there is no chance
of deleting a useful number of pages.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
On 4/20/15 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
For that matter, why do we scan backwards anyway? The comments don't
explain it, and we have
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
On 4/20/15 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
For that matter, why do we scan backwards anyway? The comments don't
explain it, and we have nonempty_pages as a starting point, so why
don't we just scan forward?
On 4/20/15 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Shouldn't completely empty pages be set as all-visible in the VM? If
so, can't we just find the largest not-all-visible page and move
forward from there, instead of moving backwards like we currently do?
If the entire table is all-visible, we
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I did literally the simplest thing I could think of as a proof of concept
patch, to see if it would actually fix things. I just jumped back a certain
number of blocks occasionally and prefetched them forward, then
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
On 4/19/15 9:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I did literally the simplest thing I could think of as a proof of
concept patch, to see if it would actually fix things. I just jumped
back a certain number of blocks
After a large bulk load aborted near the end, I decided to vacuum the main
table so as to not leave a huge chunk of free space in the middle of it,
before re-running the bulk load. This vacuum took a frustratingly long
time, as the backwards scan over the table to truncate the space did not
On 4/19/15 9:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I did literally the simplest thing I could think of as a proof of
concept patch, to see if it would actually fix things. I just jumped
back a certain number of blocks occasionally and prefetched them
forward, then resumed the regular backward scan. The
32 matches
Mail list logo