Christopher Browne kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 02:15:
> Well, actually, the case where it _would_ be troublesome would be
> where there was a combination of huge tables needing vacuuming and
> smaller ones that are _heavily_ updated (e.g. - account balances),
> where pg_autovacuum might take so long on some big tables that it
> wouldn't get to the smaller ones often enough.
Can't one just run a _separate_ VACUUM on those smaller tables ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2003-11-03 09:21:36|
|Subject: Re: adding support for posix_fadvise()|
|Previous:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2003-11-03 06:37:28|
|Subject: Re: Port Report: UnixWare|