From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: Campbell, Lance <lance@uiuc.edu>
Cc: posgres support <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Enhancement request
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:00:05 -0800
Message-ID: <20071130140005.18521c54@jd-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7341.1196459304@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <B10E6810AC2A2F4EA7550D072CDE8760197E2C@SAB-FENWICK.sab.uiuc.edu>
<36e682920711301218m703b3c67s6f547fd7b9b60e7c@mail.gmail.com>
<7099.1196458205@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<36e682920711301332q1cce5db9qe44fb068fcd5608d@mail.gmail.com>
<7341.1196459304@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:48:24 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 30, 2007 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> AFAICS we are moving as fast as we can in the direction of auto
> >> vacuum and analyze. Adding more frammishes to the manual commands
> >> seems like gilding the buggy whip.
>
> 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.
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.
Autovacuum is a great utility for many workloads but even with the
upcoming changes I will continually find myself turning off autovacuum
for specific relations just so I can turn around and turn on vacuum
within cron for others.
The multi-worker autovacuum is a great new addition to help part of
that problem (starvation) but it is not help against the other
(resource consumption, specifically IO).
> I can see a need for manual vacuuming of
> individual special-case tables, but I don't see why schema-wide
> vacuuming is so useful as to justify diverting development effort to
> it.
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...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (188B, ../20071130140005.18521c54@jd-laptop/2-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jonah.harris@gmail.com, lance@uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Enhancement request
In-Reply-To: <20071130140005.18521c54@jd-laptop>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox