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

Re: Autovacuum & Table List Ordering

From: "Usama Dar" <munir(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum & Table List Ordering
Date: 2008-01-03 15:27:23
Message-ID: ff0e67090801030727j7e5aa16ds337f4c59aa5c7d42@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 3, 2008 7:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> Sure, feel free to propose a specific ordering.  I think you would need
> to take table size into account too.


Thanks, i thought we were already taking the database size into account
somewhat when we calculate the vacuum threshold by factoring in reltuples.
My initial thought is that we already decide to vacuum a table if (vactuples
> vacthresh). if we order the list by vacpriority where

vacpriority=vactuples - vacthresh

it would be reasonable start, without being too complicated , thoughts?


>
>
> Something that's also important to fix while you're doing that is fixing
> the "BUG" that is mentioned in the code that Simon griped about not long
> ago.


OK, i will look what that is



>
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera
> http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>



-- 
Usama Munir Dar http://www.linkedin.com/in/usamadar
Consultant Architect
Cell:+92 321 5020666
Skype: usamadar

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brian HurtDate: 2008-01-03 15:37:31
Subject: Re: Slow count(*)
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2008-01-03 15:15:59
Subject: Re: Slow count(*)

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