Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew McMillan <Andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Date: 2000-07-12 13:37:36
Message-ID: 200007121337.JAA21554@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I can see some value in having a _configurable_ threshold %age of
> deletes before vacuum kicked in and attempted to shrink table/index
> on-disk file sizes. This would let the end-user decide, and 20% is
> probably a reasonable default, but if it isn't then changing a default
> is easier to do down the track.
>
> I can also see that it could be done with (perhaps) a modification to
> VACUUM syntax, say:
> VACUUM [VERBOSE] [SHRINK] ...
>
> And I believe that the whole thing will go better if ANALYZE is taken
> _out_ of vacuum, as was discussed on this list a month or two ago.

The analayze process no longer locks the table exclusively. It will be
made a separate command in 7.1, though an ANALYZE option will still be
avaiable in VACUUM.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2000-07-12 13:51:13 pg_dump & blobs - editable dump?
Previous Message Tim Perdue 2000-07-12 13:25:25 Re: Serious Performance Loss in 7.0.2??