Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum
Date
Msg-id 20070111034159.GJ12217@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:10:34AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> > > Is the best way to do that usually to lower the scale factors?  Is it
> > > ever a good approach to lower the scale factor to zero and just set the
> > > thresholds to a pure number of rows? (when setting it for a specific
> > > table)
> >
> > The problem is what happens if autovac goes off and starts vacuuming
> > some large table? While that's going on your queue table is sitting
> > there bloating. If you have a separate cronjob to handle the queue
> > table, it'll stay small, especially in 8.2.
>
> You mean "at least in 8.2".  In previous releases, you could vacuum
> that queue table until you were blue on the face, but it would achieve
> nothing because it would consider that the dead tuples were visible to a
> running transaction: that running the vacuum on the large table.  This
> is an annoyance that was fixed in 8.2.

True, but in many environments there are other transactions that run
long enough that additional vacuums while a long vacuum was running
would still help.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum
Next
From: Arnau
Date:
Subject: Does it matters the column order in indexes and constraints creation?