From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum questions... |
Date: | 2005-09-25 07:03:58 |
Message-ID: | 1127631838.4865.49.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On L, 2005-09-24 at 20:25 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Actually this also probably would not gain you much in 8.1
> as vacuum in theory is already dealing with itself.
Interesting. Could you explain it in a more detailed way ?
How does vacuum "deal with itself" in 8.1 ?
> >Also, would it be possible to add some means to check the status of a
> >running vacuum? Even with vacuum verbose, once it starts in on a large
> >table you have no way to know how far along it is.
> >
> >
> That is an interesting thought... Perhaps a quick scan of
> the table to see how many dead rows there are? Then check
> back every n/10 ? Hmmm... I am not a C guy so I don't know if
> that is technically feasible (although probably possible) but it
> is interesting from a DBA perspective.
Not sure of a "quick scan" approach, espacially for tables big enough
for the progress info would be interesting (in my experience a scan is
never quick).
Perhaps VACUUM could send some statistics after each N pages and this
would then be available through something similar to pg_statistics
table.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-09-25 07:10:22 | Re: \d on database with a lot of tables is slow |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-09-25 04:29:54 | Re: Vacuum questions... |