Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements
Date
Msg-id 1169491330.3776.396.camel@silverbirch.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@it.is.rice.edu>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:27 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yep, agreed on the random I/O issue.  The larger question is if you have
> a huge table, do you care to reclaim 3% of the table size, rather than
> just vacuum it when it gets to 10% dirty?  I realize the vacuum is going
> to take a lot of time, but vacuuming to relaim 3% three times seems like
> it is going to be more expensive than just vacuuming the 10% once.  And
> vacuuming to reclaim 1% ten times seems even more expensive.  The
> partial vacuum idea is starting to look like a loser to me again.

Hold that thought! Read Heikki's Piggyback VACUUM idea on new thread...

--
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill