| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-12-19 16:22:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20061219162247.GE3036@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > Alternatively, perhaps a threshold so that a table is only considered
> > for vacuum if:
> > (table-size * overall-activity-in-last-hour) < threshold
> > Ideally you'd define your units appropriately so that you could just
> > define threshold in postgresql.conf as 30% (of peak activity in last 100
> > hours say).
>
> No, this is definitely not enough. The problem scenario is when
> autovacuum starts vacuuming a huge table and that keeps it busy 10 hours
> and in the meantime the small but frequently updated tables get awfully
> bloated...
>
> The only solution to that is to have multiple vacuums running in
> parallel, and it would be really nice if those multiple vacuums would be
> coordinated by autovacuum too...
Yes, I agree, having multiple "autovacuum workers" would be useful.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bob Pawley | 2006-12-19 16:25:03 | Re: Creating an Independant Application |
| Previous Message | John McCawley | 2006-12-19 16:21:33 | Re: Anyone? Best way to authenticate postgres against |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-19 16:25:04 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-12-19 16:20:11 | Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum |