Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables
Date: 2008-12-08 15:13:23
Message-ID: 24912.1228749203@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> In the end, it would be better if this function was not called at all
> for user-invoked vacuum, and have autovacuum handle it. However, that
> doesn't work for people who disable autovacuum.

A possible variant on that is to invoke it only in database-wide
vacuums, ie not when you specify a single target table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ohp 2008-12-08 15:20:00 Re: cvs head initdb hangs on unixware
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-08 15:09:42 Re: new vacuum is slower for small tables