| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 14:09:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1150985358.3309.90.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > [...]
> > There has to be a more linear way of handling this scenario.
>
> So vacuum the table often.
Good advice, except if the table is huge :-)
Here we have for example some tables which are frequently updated but
contain >100 million rows. Vacuuming that takes hours. And the dead row
candidates are the ones which are updated again and again and looked up
frequently...
A good solution would be a new type of vacuum which does not need to do
a full table scan but can clean the pending dead rows without that... I
guess then I could vacuum really frequently those tables.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2006-06-22 14:19:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Craig A. James | 2006-06-22 14:03:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |