On 08-11-2013 05:07, Jan Lentfer wrote: > For the case where you have tables of varying size this would lead to > a reduced overall processing time as it prevents large (read: long > processing time) tables to be processed in the last step. While > processing large tables at first and filling up "processing > slots/jobs" when they get free with smaller tables one after the > other would safe overall execution time. > That is certainly a good strategy (not the optimal [1] -- that is hard to achieve). Also, the strategy must:
(i) consider the relation age before size (for vacuum); (ii) consider that you can't pick indexes for the same relation (for reindex). [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobwxqsagXKtyQ1S8+gMpqxF_MLXv=4350tfzvqawke...@mail.gmail.com -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
