Christopher Browne wrote:
> The world rejoiced as hannu(at)tm(dot)ee (Hannu Krosing) wrote:
>> 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 ?
> Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having a daemon that tries to
> manage this all for you.
It only shows where the daemon has potential for improvement. If it
knows approximately the table sizes, it can manage a separate "passing"
lane for the fast and high frequent commuters.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-11-03 14:38:23|
|Subject: Re: adding support for posix_fadvise() |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2003-11-03 14:16:37|
|Subject: Re: adding support for posix_fadvise()|