From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tuning autovacuum |
Date: | 2011-06-09 02:55:36 |
Message-ID: | 4DF03628.30904@timbira.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em 08-06-2011 20:35, Robert Haas escreveu:
> Is the hint correct? I mean, what if there were 100 small tables that
> needed vacuuming all at the same time. We'd hit this limit no matter
> how high you set autovacuum_max_workers, but it wouldn't be right to
> set it to 101 just because every once in a blue moon you might trip
> over the limit.
>
I think so. You are picturing a scene with only one message. It is the same
case of the too-frequent-checkpoint messages; i.e., you should look if those
messages have some periodicity.
> I think it'd be really useful to expose some more data in this area
> though. One random idea is - remember the time at which a table was
> first observed to need vacuuming. Clear the timestamp when it gets
> vacuumed. Then you can do:
>
Hmmm. But this fine grained information alone doesn't help tuning the number
of autovacuum workers. I consider counters easier to implement and simpler to
analyze. But the timestamp idea has its merit because we already have a
similar statistic (last timestamp table was vacuumed or analyzed).
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-09 03:20:15 | Re: WALInsertLock contention |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-06-09 02:36:57 | Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby |