Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>Yes, I'm aware about it indeed I need the analyze because usualy I do on that
>table select regarding last 24 ours so need to analyze it in order to
>collect the statistics for this period.
>Beside that I tried to partition that table, I used both tecnique on
>1) A view with UNION ALL on all tables collecting these logs
>2) Using inheritance
>and both cases are working in theory but in practice are not ( the index scan
>is lost as soon you use this view/table inside others views or joining them)
>I heard that next version of pg_autovacuum can be instructed "per table";
>is it true ?
The version of pg_autovacuum that I submitted for 8.0 could be
instructed "per table" but it didn't make the cut. Aside from moved out
of contrib and integrated into the backend, per table autovacuum
settings is probably the next highest priority.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Markus Schaber||Date: 2005-02-28 15:46:34|
|Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?|
|Previous:||From: Markus Schaber||Date: 2005-02-28 08:10:36|
|Subject: Re: Peformance Tuning Opterons/ Hard Disk Layout|