| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: partial vacuum |
| Date: | 2005-03-12 02:26:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20050312.112619.129345601.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Have you looked at the vacuum cost delay features present in 8.0?
> On the whole that seems like a better solution for reducing the impact
> of routine vacuuming than trying to manage partial vacuuming with an
> approach like this.
IMO vacuum cost delay seems not to be a solution. To keep long running
system's performance steady, we need to avoid table/index bloat(I
assume incoming trasanction rate is constant). Surely vacuum delay
reduces the impact, but the cost is taking longer time to salvage free
spaces, and FMS will run out due to incoming transactions, no?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-12 02:30:57 | Re: Raw size |
| Previous Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2005-03-12 01:38:46 | Re: partial vacuum |