From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
Date: | 2006-08-17 17:43:34 |
Message-ID: | 20060817174334.GU318@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Actually, on a table small enough for the thresholds to kick in it's
> >going to be extremely fast to vacuum anyway, and the table is probably
> >either static or changing very rapidly. I'm wondering if maybe they
> >should just default to 0?
> >
> I assume you are suggesting that the base value be 0? Well for one
> thing if the table doesn't have any rows that will result in constant
> vacuuming of that table, so it needs to be greater than 0. For a small
> table, say 100 rows, there usually isn'tn much performance impact if the
> table if 50% dead space, so I think the base values you suggest are OK,
> but they shouldn't be 0.
Actually Tom suggested some time ago that we should get rid of the base
value completely, i.e. make it 0 forever.
A row with 0 tables would not show any activity in pgstats, so it would
not be vacuumed constantly. Only once after it's truncated.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-08-17 17:47:37 | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-17 17:42:20 | Re: Enum proposal / design |