| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
| Date: | 2000-07-12 16:13:07 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0007121311510.1325-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I do not see what your 20% idea has to do with this, though, nor
> > > why it's a good idea. If I've told the thing to vacuum I think
> > > it should vacuum. 20% of a big table could be a lot of megabytes,
> > > and I don't want some arbitrary decision in the code about whether
> > > I can reclaim that space or not.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind seeing some automagic vacuum happen *if* >20% expired
> > ... but don't understand the limit when I tell it to vacuum either ...
>
> I am confused by your comment.
Make the backend reasonably intelligent ... periodically do a scan, as
you've suggested would be required for your above 20% idea, and if >20%
are expired records, auto-start a vacuum (settable, of course) ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-12 16:15:53 | Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-07-12 16:11:32 | Re: Serious Performance Loss in 7.0.2?? |