| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-30 18:31:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1359570710.31134.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So reducing vacuum_freeze_min_age not only helps minimize the
>> writes that are needed when autovacuum needs to scan the entire
>> heap,
>
> How does it do that? If the tuple doesn't need to frozen now
> because it was already frozen, that just means the write happened
> at a different time but it still happened.
There's a lot to be said for nibbling away at it during VM
autovacuum runs versus doing it in big chunks in heap-scan runs,
particularly if your BBU cache can absorb up to a certain amout
with no real pain, but causes major pain if the write cache fills.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-01-30 20:12:16 | Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-30 18:26:37 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |