| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tuning autovacuum |
| Date: | 2011-06-09 21:41:57 |
| Message-ID: | 16306.1307655717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> What we'd probably need to do with those is handle them like the other
> stats in the system: store a total number for visited/cleaned/dead for
> each relation, then increment the total as each vacuum finishes.
As Robert said, we're already seeing scalability problems with the
pg_stats subsystem. I'm not eager to add a bunch more per-table
counters, at least not without some prior work to damp down the ensuing
performance hit.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-09 21:43:27 | Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-09 21:38:48 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |