Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:00:05 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, "Campbell, Lance"
	<lance@uiuc.edu>, "posgres support" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Enhancement request
Message-ID: <20071130140005.18521c54@jd-laptop>
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>
Organization: Joshua D. Drake
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/gylha+VCr4Coflw0h02RRDk";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1

--Sig_/gylha+VCr4Coflw0h02RRDk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
>=20
> 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

--Sig_/gylha+VCr4Coflw0h02RRDk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHUIfoATb/zqfZUUQRAiS4AJwL+Bi9rMvdDMpa33R/twhtx6AjzACeKy+e
CcGgkqkKHtA+pkUmlUzTZQ4=
=iPJJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/gylha+VCr4Coflw0h02RRDk--