X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B0ED1D17D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:42:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03319-07 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:42:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server228.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDF4D1B557 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:42:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO 192.168.1.29) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 4378098; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:43:24 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Rod Taylor Subject: Re: Preventing duplicate vacuums? Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:41:25 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: PostgreSQL Development References: <200402051237.14615.josh@agliodbs.com> <1076016392.308.539.camel@jester> In-Reply-To: <1076016392.308.539.camel@jester> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402051341.25089.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/213 X-Sequence-Number: 49802 Rod, > You have a 8 billion row table with some very high turn over tuples > (lots of updates to a few thousand rows). A partial or targeted vacuum > would be best, failing that you kick them off fairly frequently, > especially if IO isn't really an issue. Yes, but we don't have partial or targeted vacuums yet. When tablespaces is finished, presumably the lock would be per tablespace. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco