From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-21 20:22:37 |
Message-ID: | 20030821202236.GE10003@libertyrms.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:10:34PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, nothing can help if the database has dead tuples already.
> Sometime somebody has to take time to run vacuum full and/or
> database reload to get a clean state.
But if you have a busy system, you'll have new dead tuples.
> Point I am trying to make is to tune FSM and autovacuum frequency
> such that you catch all the dead tuples in RAM, which is
> non-blocking operation at the expense of some CPU power. I am sure
> 1 min autovacuum I suggested is waaay too aggressive for any
> scheduled vacuum isn't it?
Not for some cases. In (say) 40% write situation, you have _lots_ of
dead tuples. Perhaps you can make the application more efficient,
but that's not always an option (maybe you don't have the code).
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 20:28:52 | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-08-21 20:20:03 | Re: Buglist |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 20:28:52 | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-08-21 20:20:03 | Re: Buglist |