| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Date: | 2024-04-26 13:31:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZav6Mxv6qzPEZiAknzqdQ7Cq-oS1WJ6N-sPe5QyT2tiA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:22 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> Although I don't think 500000 is necessarily too small. In my view,
> having autovac run very quickly, even if more frequently, provides an
> overall better user experience.
Can you elaborate on why you think that? I mean, to me, that's almost
equivalent to removing autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor entirely,
because only for very small tables will that calculation produce a
value lower than 500k.
We might need to try to figure out some test cases here. My intuition
is that this is going to vacuum large tables insanely aggressively.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Borisov | 2024-04-26 13:33:33 | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-26 13:27:23 | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |