| From: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce some randomness to autovacuum |
| Date: | 2025-04-25 15:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAN-LCVPrwcOAi8syb9C_mLk7uSxrAdK0_xb2XiMZCiKwX=C41g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
I agree it is a good idea to shift the table list. Although vacuuming
larger tables first
is a questionable approach because smaller ones could wait a long time to
be vacuumed.
It looks like the most obvious and simple way is that the first table to be
vacuumed
should not be the first one from the previous iteration.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 6:04 PM wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi，I like your idea，It would be even better if the weights could be taken
> according to the larger tables
>
>
--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
The Russian Postgres Company
https://postgrespro.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-04-25 16:09:58 | Questions about logicalrep_worker_launch() |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Kumar Veldanda | 2025-04-25 15:15:26 | Re: ZStandard (with dictionaries) compression support for TOAST compression |