Re: Potential autovacuum optimization: new tables

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Potential autovacuum optimization: new tables
Date: 2013-01-25 22:10:18
Message-ID: 20130125221018.GC28591@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:06:27AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Josh's concern is about autovacuum causing lots of stats churn, which is
> > understandable, we don't want it constantly rescanning a table
>
> I don't think rescanning the table is a big concern. autovacuum will
> only scan as often as it feels like in the first place and these are
> by definition small tables anyways.
>
> Josh's stated concern was about the churn in the stats table. That
> could cause extra vacuums on the stats table which could be a fairly
> substantial table. Hopefully HOT updates and the visibility bitmap
> would protect against that being too bad though.

Added to TODO:

Improve autovacuum tuning

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-01-25 22:30:58 Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-01-25 22:10:14 Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index