Hans-Juergen Schoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > overhead is not an issue here - if i lose 10 or 15% i am totally fine as > long as i can reduce vacuum overhead to an absolute minimum.
I cannot see the sanity of taking a ~10% hit on all I/O activity (especially foreground queries) to avoid having background vacuuming going on --- at least assuming that we can keep the impact of vacuuming below 10%, which I should hope that we could. What your problem sounds like to me is that you need a smarter autovacuum scheduler. Some of the map-fork ideas we've discussed would also help, by allowing vacuum to skip pages that're known to contain only frozen tuples --- your large low-turnover tables would probably have a lot of those. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers