| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Buglist |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 15:08:14 |
| Message-ID: | 3F452DB6.26979.1725DD7@localhost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 21 Aug 2003 at 11:01, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:40:29PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Given lazy vacuum doesn't hold locks for long periods, it could be
> > an idea to continuously spend 1% of your disk bandwidth on a
> > background vacuum. As for vacuum full, I don't know if you could do
> > the same thing.
>
> Assuming that one can keep up with the dust bunnies this way, though,
> one wouldn't need to do vacuum full. This would definitely be a way
> cool feature, if implementable.
If a database is clean i.e. no dead tuple, an autovacuum daemon with 1 min
interval can achieve pretty much same result, isn't it?
Bye
Shridhar
--
Drew's Law of Highway Biology: The first bug to hit a clean windshield lands
directly in front of your eyes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | expect | 2003-08-21 15:17:37 | Re: Your details |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-21 15:07:16 | Re: Buglist |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-08-21 15:26:03 | Re: Buglist |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-21 15:07:16 | Re: Buglist |