| From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "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: | 2007-07-05 07:30:17 |
| Message-ID: | 468C9E09.9090703@gmx.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So what you are proposing above amounts to setting scale factor = 0.05.
> The threshold is unimportant -- in the case of a big table it matters
> not if it's 0 or 1000, it will be almost irrelevant in calculations. In
> the case of small tables, then the table will be vacuumed in almost
> every iteration if the threshold is 0, which is fine because the table
> is small anyway. So why not let the threshold be 0 and be done with it?
For very small tables, setting a threshold of 0 could mean a vacuum
after every single row update (or every other row). I think that is just
burning cycles. What about a threshold of 10 or 50, to have at least
some sanity limit? Even though the cost of vacuum of a small table is
low, it is still not free, IMHO, no?
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2007-07-05 07:44:41 | Re: GRANT ROLE and triggers |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-05 06:34:14 | Re: what is difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL TEMPTABLES in PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-07-05 13:01:06 | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-07-05 05:03:11 | Re: Compile error with MSVC |