Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Gaetano Mendola <gmendola(at)mbigroup(dot)it>
Cc: Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com>,Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Date: 2005-02-28 14:30:58
Message-ID: 42232B22.4030302@zeut.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Gaetano Mendola wrote:

>Yes, I'm  aware about it indeed I need the analyze because usualy I do on that
>table select regarding last 24 ours so need to analyze it in order to
>collect the statistics for this period.
>Beside that I tried to partition that table, I used both tecnique on
>my knowledge
>
>1) A view with UNION ALL on all tables collecting these logs
>2) Using inheritance
>
>and both cases are working in theory but in practice are not ( the index scan
>is lost as soon you use this view/table inside others views or joining them)
>
>I heard that next version of pg_autovacuum can be instructed "per table";
>is it true ?
>

The version of pg_autovacuum that I submitted for 8.0 could be 
instructed "per table" but it didn't make the cut.  Aside from moved out 
of contrib and integrated into the backend, per table autovacuum 
settings is probably the next highest priority.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2005-02-28 15:46:34
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2005-02-28 08:10:36
Subject: Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group