On Nov 30, 2007 5:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > So: show me a use case for this that will still make sense in a
> > mostly-autovacuum world.
>
> I think you are living in a different world than I am if you think it
> is a mostly-autovacuum world.
Same here.
> Yes autovacuum is great for general low use scenarios. Throw it at a
> database doing hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of transactions
> an hour that has relations that in the multiple hundred gig range and
> autovacuum is useless for a good portion of that database.
Yes, this is precisely the case I'm talking about. Every single
high-volume client we have or have consulted for is using custom
vacuuming. Autovacuum works fine for the common case, but it doesn't
handle high-volume databases very well yet.
> The thing is, it isn't nearly as special case for my environments. I
> have many customers, with many tables where autovacuum just doesn't cut
> it. We turn it on for say 80% of the relations but guess what... the
> important relations are still on some type of schedule through
> something like cron.
>
> I get your argument but surely adding SCHEMA isn't that much of a code
> bloat scenario. We don't even have to add another reserved word...
Agreed. It's very simple and won't add much code at all.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
