Re: Vacuum goes worse

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum goes worse
Date: 2007-10-17 01:16:01
Message-ID: 26070.1192583761@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Would it make sense to show the FSM stats for individual table vaccums as w=
> ell? I'm wondering if the reason they aren't shown is because it wouldn't =
> be useful or isn't practical, or just that it hasn't been done.

It was intentionally omitted in the original design, on the grounds that
after a single-table VACUUM there's no very good reason to think that
the global FSM stats are sufficiently complete to be accurate. Of
course, in a multi-database installation the same charge could be
leveled against the situation after a single-database VACUUM, so maybe
there's not a lot of strength in the argument.

IIRC the code change would be trivial, it's just a matter of judgment
whether the extra output is useful/trustworthy.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-10-17 03:19:51 Re: Vacuum goes worse
Previous Message Brian Herlihy 2007-10-17 00:03:39 Re: Vacuum goes worse