Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>
To: "Sabin Coanda" <sabin(dot)coanda(at)deuromedia(dot)ro>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon
Date: 2007-06-12 16:25:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
In response to "Sabin Coanda" <sabin(dot)coanda(at)deuromedia(dot)ro>:

> Hi there,
> Using explicitly VACUUM command give me the opportunity to fine tune my 
> VACUUM scheduling parameters, after I analyze the log generated by VACUUM 
> On the other hand I'd like to use the auto-vacuum mechanism because of its 
> facilities. Unfortunately, after I made some initial estimations for 
> autovacuum_naptime, and I set the specific data into pg_autovacuum table, I 
> have not a feedback from the auto-vacuum mechanism to check that it works 
> well or not.  It would be nice to have some kind of log similar with the one 
> generated by VACUUM VERBOSE. Is the auto-vacuum mechanism able to provide 
> such a useful log ?

Ditto what Alvaro said.

However, you can get some measure of tracking my running VACUUM VERBOSE
on a regular basis to see how well autovacuum is keeping up.  There's
no problem with running manual vacuum and autovacuum together, and you'll
be able to gather _some_ information about how well autovacuum is
keeping up.

Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

Phone: 412-422-3463x4023

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Sabin CoandaDate: 2007-06-12 16:42:10
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-06-12 16:09:46
Subject: Re: test / live environment, major performance difference

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group