| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |
| Date: | 2006-12-29 23:25:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20061229232511.GB32000@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Seems to me that you could get ~80% of the way by having the simplest
> "2 queue" implementation, where tables with size < some threshold get
> thrown at the "little table" queue, and tables above that size go to
> the "big table" queue.
>
> That should keep any small tables from getting "vacuum-starved."
Hmm, would it make sense to keep 2 queues, one that goes through the
tables in smaller-to-larger order, and the other one in the reverse
direction?
I am currently writing a design on how to create "vacuum queues" but I'm
thinking that maybe it's getting too complex to handle, and a simple
idea like yours is enough (given sufficient polish).
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Neff | 2006-12-30 00:21:12 | psql script error handling |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-12-29 23:22:27 | Re: out of memory woes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2006-12-29 23:42:10 | Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-12-29 23:21:50 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |