| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-12-19 16:06:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1166544400.13028.255.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Alternatively, perhaps a threshold so that a table is only considered
> for vacuum if:
> (table-size * overall-activity-in-last-hour) < threshold
> Ideally you'd define your units appropriately so that you could just
> define threshold in postgresql.conf as 30% (of peak activity in last 100
> hours say).
No, this is definitely not enough. The problem scenario is when
autovacuum starts vacuuming a huge table and that keeps it busy 10 hours
and in the meantime the small but frequently updated tables get awfully
bloated...
The only solution to that is to have multiple vacuums running in
parallel, and it would be really nice if those multiple vacuums would be
coordinated by autovacuum too...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-19 16:11:23 | Re: Anyone? Best way to authenticate postgres against active directory? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-19 16:02:09 | Re: Let's play bash the search engine |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-12-19 16:20:11 | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2006-12-19 15:58:22 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |