| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum tuple threshold to decide last pass of VACUUM |
| Date: | 2015-08-03 20:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | 55BFD52A.5030506@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/3/15 12:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Yes, that's what I was thinking, I just didn't say actually it. I'd been
> thinking about having VACUUM do just Phase 1 for some time, since its so
> much faster to do that. Will code.
I'd like to see that exposed as an option as well. There are certain
situations where you'd really like to just freeze things as fast as
possible, without waiting for a full vacuum.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-08-03 21:32:40 | Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-03 20:36:11 | Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort" |