| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum daemon (pgvacuumd ?) |
| Date: | 2002-03-06 03:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200203060301.g2631kP19379@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Is the number of deleted tuples sufficient to decide priority on vacuum? My
> thinking is that the tables with the most deleted tuples is the table which
> need most vacuum. Should ratio of deleted tuples vs total tuples or just count
> of deleted tuples. I am thinking ratio, but maybe it need be tunable.
Deleted or updated. Both expire tuples. Also, the old tuples can't be
vacuumed until no other transaction is viewing them as active.
> (4) If the tables eligible to be vacuumed have deleted tuples which exceed
> acceptable limits, vacuum them.
Seems you will measure in percentages, right?
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-06 03:12:03 | Re: Vacuum daemon (pgvacuumd ?) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-06 02:59:51 | Re: Do we still have locking problems with concurrent users |