| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 14:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | 55390552.4070805@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/23/15 8:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Some users are partitioning tables just so that each
> partition can be autovac'd separately. That really shouldn't be
> required.
Are they doing this for improved heap scan performance? Index scan
performance? If the table wasn't partitioned, would they need more than
one pass through the indexes due to exhausting maintenance_work_mem?
There's probably some fairly low-hanging fruit for parallelizing vacuum,
but it really depends on what problems people are running into.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-04-23 14:48:32 | Re: Allow SQL/plpgsql functions to accept record |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-23 14:40:59 | Re: anole - test case sha2 fails on all branches |