Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, "Darcy Buskermolen" <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements
Date: 2007-01-22 18:42:09
Message-ID: 1169491330.3776.396.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:27 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yep, agreed on the random I/O issue. The larger question is if you have
> a huge table, do you care to reclaim 3% of the table size, rather than
> just vacuum it when it gets to 10% dirty? I realize the vacuum is going
> to take a lot of time, but vacuuming to relaim 3% three times seems like
> it is going to be more expensive than just vacuuming the 10% once. And
> vacuuming to reclaim 1% ten times seems even more expensive. The
> partial vacuum idea is starting to look like a loser to me again.

Hold that thought! Read Heikki's Piggyback VACUUM idea on new thread...

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2007-01-22 18:53:35 Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-01-22 18:41:22 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message korryd 2007-01-22 18:43:29 Re: 10 weeks to feature freeze (Pending Work)
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-01-22 18:41:22 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements