From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum |
Date: | 2006-02-02 02:32:31 |
Message-ID: | m3fyn2o5hc.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
> This seems maybe a bit overkill to me. I think what would be more useful
> is if autovacuum could execute more than one vacuum at a time, and you
> could specify tables that are high priority (or possibly just say that
> all tables with less than X live tuples in them are high priority). That
> way a longer-running vacuum on a large table wouldn't prevent more
> vacuum-sensative tables (such as queues) from being vacuumed frequently
> enough.
Actually, I can think of a case for much the opposite, namely to want
to concurrently vacuum some LARGE tables...
Suppose you have 2 rather big tables that get updates on similar
schedules such that both will have a lot of dead tuples at similar
times.
And suppose both of these tables are Way Large, so that they take
six hours to vacuum.
I could argue for kicking off vacuums on both, at the same moment;
they'll both be occupying transactions for 1/4 of a day, and, with
possibly related patterns of updates, doing them one after the other
*wouldn't* forcibly get you more tuples cleaned than doing them
concurrently.
I'm not sure that's a case to push for, either, as something
pg_autovacuum is smart enough to handle; I'm just putting out some
ideas that got enough internal discussion to suggest they were
interesting enough to let others consider...
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to
kill again." -- Unknown, Marin County newspaper's TV listing for _The
Wizard of Oz_
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | slackman | 2006-02-02 03:55:13 | is there any missing ?? |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-02-01 21:37:07 | Re: [PERFORM] Default autovacuum settings too conservative |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-02-02 08:19:43 | Re: TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-02-02 02:24:19 | Re: TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control |