Message-ID: <4656CDC2.6030106@archonet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:51:30 +0100
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bastian Voigt <post@bastian-voigt.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance Problem with Vacuum of bytea table (PG
 8.0.13)
References: <46569E6A.2060509@bastian-voigt.de>
 <4656BB5E.3000109@archonet.com>
	<4656BEF1.4050609@bastian-voigt.de> <4656C1C7.3000003@archonet.com>
	<4656C411.8010509@bastian-voigt.de>
In-Reply-To: <4656C411.8010509@bastian-voigt.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bastian Voigt wrote:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>>
>> I was about to say that you can tune pg_autovacuum, but I just checked 
>> your original post and you're running 8.0.x - not sure about that one.
> The system catalog pg_autovacuum which allows finetuning autovacuum at 
> table level was introduced in 8.1 :-(

Hmm - thought it might have been :-(

>> You'll have to check the documentation for that version to see if you 
>> can either:
>> 1. exclude that table from pg_autovacuum
>> 2. increase pg_autovacuum's sensitivity
> (1) seems to be impossible (correct me if I'm wrong..), so maybe I'll go 
> for (2) ...

No, the per-table stuff was via the system table.

>> If not, and this table is the most active, it might be simpler just to 
>> run your own vacuum-ing from a cron job.
> Well, it is one of the most active, but there are others. pg_autovacuum 
> seems to do a very good job, apart from this one table...

Do you have any settings in your postgresql.conf? Failing that, you 
would have to poke around the source.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd