| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion |
| Date: | 2002-11-03 10:25:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1036319155.12252.4.camel@rh72.home.ee |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner kirjutas P, 03.11.2002 kell 06:30:
> At 09:36 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Why not do frequent non-full vacuums on only that table, perhaps every
> >five minutes or so? That's certainly the direction that development is
> >headed in (we just haven't automated the vacuuming yet).
>
> Done this now, and I'll wait for a new high load time to see how big the
> table gets.
You should find the best interval by testing.
I guess the interval could be smaller than 5 min for high loads - I
remember testing this situation for getting top update performance when
several threads were doing updates at full speed and the best
performance was achieved by running a separate backend in a loop that
kept doing VACUUM TABLE with only 5 seconds sleep between .
-----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2002-11-03 10:41:57 | Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-03 04:43:09 | Re: Optimizer Question/Suggestion |