| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, "'Jim C(dot) Nasby'" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
| Date: | 2006-08-24 15:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20060824150835.GO73562@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:58:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I think there is a reasonable case for saying that a manual vacuum could
> > hint pgstat to create the entry instead.
>
> The problem with that is that a simple "VACUUM;" would force pgstat to
> populate its entire hashtable. Which more or less defeats the idea of
> not wasting table space on inactive tables --- and given the way the
> reporting-file mechanism works, there's definitely an incentive to not
> make the table bigger than it has to be.
>
> It wouldn't be so bad if pgstat had a mechanism for aging out unused
> table entries ...
Maybe a good compromise would be only populating info for tables that
had dead tuples... that would eliminate any static tables, and most DBAs
should know that those tables are static.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-08-24 15:33:52 | Re: Costs estimates for (inline SQL) functions ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-24 15:00:45 | Re: Updatable views |