Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum
Date: 2006-12-19 15:46:23
Message-ID: 4588094F.7070909@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
>> - One might have *two* consumers, one that will only process small
>> tables, so that those little, frequently updated tables can get
>> handled quickly, and another consumer that does larger tables.
>> Or perhaps that knows that it's fine, between 04:00 and 09:00 UTC,
>> to have 6 consumers, and blow through a lot of larger tables
>> simultaneously.
>
> So one of the 2 might be enough. I guess time-based
> exclusion/permissions are not that easy to implement, and also not easy
> to set up properly... so what could work well is:

Alternatively, perhaps a threshold so that a table is only considered
for vacuum if:
(table-size * overall-activity-in-last-hour) < threshold
Ideally you'd define your units appropriately so that you could just
define threshold in postgresql.conf as 30% (of peak activity in last 100
hours say).

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Derrick Stensrud 2006-12-19 15:52:58 Re: Anyone? Best way to authenticate postgres against
Previous Message Matthew O'Connor 2006-12-19 15:27:56 Re: Let's play bash the search engine

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-12-19 15:48:41 column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2006-12-19 15:40:13 Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file