On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>wrote:
> Noah Freire wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net<mailto:
>> matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>> wrote:
>> Is the table being excluded? (see the pg_autovacuum system table
>> there's an entry for this table on pg_autovacuum, and it's enabled.
>> Are you sure that it's not getting processed? Perhaps one worker
>> is / has been churning on this table for a *LONG* time (that is a
>> fairly big table).
>> Right. I was wrong :-) the table is being processed by autovacuum (I
>> checked via pg_stat_activity). However, as you pinpointed, it's already
>> running for hours (the test workload ended hours ago, basically it is just
>> this autovacuum worker running on the system). Is there a way to make a
>> more aggressive autovacuum setting for this table? it does not matter if it
>> will affect performance, my concern is that it finishes as soon as possible.
>> I wonder if a manual vacuum wouldn't be faster.
> Yes, in the pg_autovacuum table, you can set per-relation vacuum cost
> delay settings etc...
Right. cost-delay for this table is already zeroed. Perhaps autovacuum
could have an entry for cpu and/or i/o usage threshold, in a way that when
one of this resources had an activity below a pre-defined threshold,
autovacuum could run more aggressively (using more i/o and/or more cpu).
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-10-31 00:03:39|
|Subject: Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql?|
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2008-10-30 23:53:28|
|Subject: Re: autovacuum|