From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Freire <noah(dot)freire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum |
Date: | 2008-10-30 23:53:28 |
Message-ID: | 490A48F8.1030607@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Noah Freire wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net
> <mailto:matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>> wrote:
>
>
> Is the table being excluded? (see the pg_autovacuum system table
> settings)
>
>
> there's an entry for this table on pg_autovacuum, and it's enabled.
>
>
> Are you sure that it's not getting processed? Perhaps one worker
> is / has been churning on this table for a *LONG* time (that is a
> fairly big table).
>
>
> Right. I was wrong :-) the table is being processed by autovacuum (I
> checked via pg_stat_activity). However, as you pinpointed, it's
> already running for hours (the test workload ended hours ago,
> basically it is just this autovacuum worker running on the system).
>
> Is there a way to make a more aggressive autovacuum setting for this
> table? it does not matter if it will affect performance, my concern is
> that it finishes as soon as possible. I wonder if a manual vacuum
> wouldn't be faster.
Yes, in the pg_autovacuum table, you can set per-relation vacuum cost
delay settings etc...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Freire | 2008-10-30 23:59:28 | Re: autovacuum |
Previous Message | Noah Freire | 2008-10-30 23:29:29 | Re: autovacuum |