From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Sabin Coanda" <sabin(dot)coanda(at)deuromedia(dot)ro> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon |
Date: | 2007-06-12 16:25:55 |
Message-ID: | 20070612122555.2b0f4fa0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
In response to "Sabin Coanda" <sabin(dot)coanda(at)deuromedia(dot)ro>:
> Hi there,
>
> Using explicitly VACUUM command give me the opportunity to fine tune my
> VACUUM scheduling parameters, after I analyze the log generated by VACUUM
> VERBOSE.
>
> On the other hand I'd like to use the auto-vacuum mechanism because of its
> facilities. Unfortunately, after I made some initial estimations for
> autovacuum_naptime, and I set the specific data into pg_autovacuum table, I
> have not a feedback from the auto-vacuum mechanism to check that it works
> well or not. It would be nice to have some kind of log similar with the one
> generated by VACUUM VERBOSE. Is the auto-vacuum mechanism able to provide
> such a useful log ?
Ditto what Alvaro said.
However, you can get some measure of tracking my running VACUUM VERBOSE
on a regular basis to see how well autovacuum is keeping up. There's
no problem with running manual vacuum and autovacuum together, and you'll
be able to gather _some_ information about how well autovacuum is
keeping up.
--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com
Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sabin Coanda | 2007-06-12 16:42:10 | Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-12 16:09:46 | Re: test / live environment, major performance difference |