From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
Date: | 2007-02-23 16:22:17 |
Message-ID: | 20070223162217.GA20242@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:32:44PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is a great idea, but I don't see how this would result
> > in large numbers of workers working in one database. If workers work
> > on tables in size order, and exit as soon as they catch up to an older
> > worker, I don't see the problem. Newer works are going to catch-up to
> > older workers pretty quickly since small tables will vacuum fairly quickly.
>
> The reason that won't necessarily happen is because you can get large
> tables popping up as needing vacuuming at any time.
Right.
We know that a table that needs frequent vacuum necessarily has to be
small -- so maybe have the second worker exit when it catches up with
the first, or when the next table is above 1 GB, whichever happens
first. That way, only the first worker can be processing the huge
tables. The problem with this is that if one of your hot tables grows
a bit larger than 1 GB, you suddenly have a change in autovacuuming
behavior, for no really good reason.
And while your second worker is processing the tables in the hundreds-MB
range, your high-update 2 MB tables are neglected :-(
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-23 16:24:27 | Re: [HACKERS] timestamp subtraction (was Re: formatting intervals with to_char) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-23 16:04:14 | Re: Simple Column reordering |