From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
Date: | 2006-12-19 15:46:23 |
Message-ID: | 4588094F.7070909@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
>> - One might have *two* consumers, one that will only process small
>> tables, so that those little, frequently updated tables can get
>> handled quickly, and another consumer that does larger tables.
>> Or perhaps that knows that it's fine, between 04:00 and 09:00 UTC,
>> to have 6 consumers, and blow through a lot of larger tables
>> simultaneously.
>
> So one of the 2 might be enough. I guess time-based
> exclusion/permissions are not that easy to implement, and also not easy
> to set up properly... so what could work well is:
Alternatively, perhaps a threshold so that a table is only considered
for vacuum if:
(table-size * overall-activity-in-last-hour) < threshold
Ideally you'd define your units appropriately so that you could just
define threshold in postgresql.conf as 30% (of peak activity in last 100
hours say).
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Derrick Stensrud | 2006-12-19 15:52:58 | Re: Anyone? Best way to authenticate postgres against |
Previous Message | Matthew O'Connor | 2006-12-19 15:27:56 | Re: Let's play bash the search engine |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-19 15:48:41 | column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-19 15:40:13 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |