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

Re: autovacuum

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum
Date: 2006-02-02 02:32:31
Message-ID: m3fyn2o5hc.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-hackers
> This seems maybe a bit overkill to me. I think what would be more useful
> is if autovacuum could execute more than one vacuum at a time, and you
> could specify tables that are high priority (or possibly just say that
> all tables with less than X live tuples in them are high priority). That
> way a longer-running vacuum on a large table wouldn't prevent more
> vacuum-sensative tables (such as queues) from being vacuumed frequently
> enough.

Actually, I can think of a case for much the opposite, namely to want
to concurrently vacuum some LARGE tables...

Suppose you have 2 rather big tables that get updates on similar
schedules such that both will have a lot of dead tuples at similar
times.

And suppose both of these tables are Way Large, so that they take
six hours to vacuum.

I could argue for kicking off vacuums on both, at the same moment;
they'll both be occupying transactions for 1/4 of a day, and, with
possibly related patterns of updates, doing them one after the other
*wouldn't* forcibly get you more tuples cleaned than doing them
concurrently.

I'm not sure that's a case to push for, either, as something
pg_autovacuum is smart enough to handle; I'm just putting out some
ideas that got enough internal discussion to suggest they were
interesting enough to let others consider...
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"Transported  to a  surreal landscape, a  young girl  kills  the first
woman she meets  and then teams  up with  three complete strangers  to
kill again."  -- Unknown, Marin County newspaper's TV listing for _The
Wizard of Oz_

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2006-02-02 08:19:43
Subject: Re: TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-02-02 02:24:19
Subject: Re: TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: slackmanDate: 2006-02-02 03:55:13
Subject: is there any missing ??
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2006-02-01 21:37:07
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Default autovacuum settings too conservative

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