From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-22 06:45:33 |
Message-ID: | 3F460965.10857.4CC821B@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 21 Aug 2003 at 18:46, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Manfred Koizar wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:10:34 +0530, "Shridhar Daithankar"
> > <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> wrote:
> >>Point I am trying to make is to tune FSM and autovacuum frequency
> >>such that you catch all the dead tuples in RAM
> >
> > You might be able to catch the pages with dead tuples in RAM, but
> > currently there's no way to keep VACUUM from reading in all the clean
> > pages, which can be far more ...
>
> Which leads us to a zero gravity vacuum, that does the lazy vacuum for
> pages currently available in the buffer cache only. And another pg_stat
> column telling the number of tuples vacuumed so that an autovac has a
> chance to avoid IO consuming vacuum runs for relations where 99% of the
> dead tuples have been caught in memory.
Since autovacuum issues vacuum analyze only, is it acceptable to say that this
is taken care of already?
Bye
Shridhar
--
"One size fits all": Doesn't fit anyone.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-22 06:47:41 | Re: Buglist |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-22 06:40:32 | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-22 06:47:41 | Re: Buglist |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-22 06:40:32 | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |