> This seems significant..it means the heap was probably written in backwards
order relative to the IDs, and the OS readahead is ineffective when index
scanning across a range of IDs.
But again, why is it different for one range and another? It was reversed for both ranges.
> I would definitely want to make that a partitioned table
Yes, I believe it will be partitioned in the future.
> I *suspect* VACUUM FULL won't help, since (AIUI) it copies all "visible" tuples from the source table into a new table (and updates indices as necessary). It can resolve bloat due to historic DELETEs, but since I think your table was written in reverse order of pkey, I think it'll also copy it in reverse order.
I am going copy the slow range into a table nearby and see if it reproduces (I hope "INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE ..." will keep existing order of rows). Then I could try the same after CLUSTER.
Regards,
Vlad
order relative to the IDs, and the OS readahead is ineffective when index
scanning across a range of IDs.
But again, why is it different for one range and another? It was reversed for both ranges.
> I would definitely want to make that a partitioned table
Yes, I believe it will be partitioned in the future.
> I *suspect* VACUUM FULL won't help, since (AIUI) it copies all "visible" tuples from the source table into a new table (and updates indices as necessary). It can resolve bloat due to historic DELETEs, but since I think your table was written in reverse order of pkey, I think it'll also copy it in reverse order.
I am going copy the slow range into a table nearby and see if it reproduces (I hope "INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE ..." will keep existing order of rows). Then I could try the same after CLUSTER.
Regards,
Vlad
