| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
| Date: | 2007-07-04 02:51:37 |
| Message-ID: | 468B0B39.2020801@tocr.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> FWIW, I normally go with the 8.2 defaults, though I could see dropping
>> vacuum_scale_factor down to 0.1 or 0.15. I also think the thresholds
>> could be decreased further, maybe divide by 10.
>
> How about pushing thresholds all the way down to 0?
As long as it handles small (or zero row) tables ok then yes. The
base_threshold in the originial contrib autovacuum was just an easy way
to not vacuum really small tables too often. If a table has only 10
rows, it's going to get vacuumed every time one row is updated. I guess
that's not a big problem with a table that small but still seems excessive.
If you think this isn't a problem with the current autovacuum, then sure
turn it down to zero, and perhaps we can even get rid of it altogether
in another release or two.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-07-04 03:14:27 | Re: Why so many out-of-disk-space failures on buildfarm machines? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-04 02:35:31 | Why so many out-of-disk-space failures on buildfarm machines? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yoshiyuki Asaba | 2007-07-04 05:12:28 | Compile error with MSVC |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-07-03 23:32:59 | Re: [DOCS] rename of a view |