On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Noah Freire wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED]<mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> Is the table being excluded? (see the pg_autovacuum system table >> settings) >> there's an entry for this table on pg_autovacuum, and it's enabled. >> >> Are you sure that it's not getting processed? Perhaps one worker >> is / has been churning on this table for a *LONG* time (that is a >> fairly big table). >> Right. I was wrong :-) the table is being processed by autovacuum (I >> checked via pg_stat_activity). However, as you pinpointed, it's already >> running for hours (the test workload ended hours ago, basically it is just >> this autovacuum worker running on the system). Is there a way to make a >> more aggressive autovacuum setting for this table? it does not matter if it >> will affect performance, my concern is that it finishes as soon as possible. >> I wonder if a manual vacuum wouldn't be faster. >> > Yes, in the pg_autovacuum table, you can set per-relation vacuum cost > delay settings etc... > Right. cost-delay for this table is already zeroed. Perhaps autovacuum could have an entry for cpu and/or i/o usage threshold, in a way that when one of this resources had an activity below a pre-defined threshold, autovacuum could run more aggressively (using more i/o and/or more cpu).
