Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon
Date
Msg-id 20070612160802.GC15517@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to VACUUM vs auto-vacuum daemon  ("Sabin Coanda" <sabin.coanda@deuromedia.ro>)
List pgsql-performance
Sabin Coanda wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Using explicitly VACUUM command give me the opportunity to fine tune my
> VACUUM scheduling parameters, after I analyze the log generated by VACUUM
> VERBOSE.
>
> On the other hand I'd like to use the auto-vacuum mechanism because of its
> facilities. Unfortunately, after I made some initial estimations for
> autovacuum_naptime, and I set the specific data into pg_autovacuum table, I
> have not a feedback from the auto-vacuum mechanism to check that it works
> well or not.  It would be nice to have some kind of log similar with the one
> generated by VACUUM VERBOSE. Is the auto-vacuum mechanism able to provide
> such a useful log ?

No, sorry, autovacuum is not currently very good regarding reporting its
activities.  It's a lot better in 8.3 but even there it doesn't report
the full VACUUM VERBOSE log.  It looks like this:

LOG:  automatic vacuum of table "alvherre.public.foo": index scans: 0
        pages: 45 removed, 0 remain
        tuples: 10000 removed, 0 remain
        system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.01 sec
LOG:  automatic analyze of table "alvherre.public.foo" system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Tyrrill, Ed"
Date:
Subject: Re: Best way to delete unreferenced rows?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: test / live environment, major performance difference