> If the decision to vacuum based on autovacuum criteria is good enough > for you then I think you should just focus on getting autovac to do what > you want it to do. Perhaps you just need to decrease the sleep time to a > few seconds, so that autovac will quickly detect when something needs to > be vacuumed.
Thanks, I'll do it. My database is updated frequently all the day and runs big building process a day. Almost all the day autovac is ok but in the big building process autovac annoys it, so I wished there might be the way to order autovac to do its process. Hitoshi Harada > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:36 AM > To: Hitoshi Harada > Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Peter Eisentraut'; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum > > If the decision to vacuum based on autovacuum criteria is good enough > for you then I think you should just focus on getting autovac to do what > you want it to do. Perhaps you just need to decrease the sleep time to a > few seconds, so that autovac will quickly detect when something needs to > be vacuumed. > > The only case I can think of where autovac might not work as well as > smartvacuum would be if you had a lot of databases in the cluster, since > autovacuum will only vacuum one database at a time. > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:18:39AM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > > Ok, > > > > But my point is, autovacuum may corrupt with vacuum analyze command > > on another session. My intention of smartvacuum() is based on this. > > Any solution for this?? > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hitoshi Harada > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:10 AM > > > To: Hitoshi Harada > > > Cc: 'Peter Eisentraut'; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum > > > > > > "Hitoshi Harada" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> How is this different from what autovacuum does? > > > > > > > My application needs to do vacuum by itself, while > > > > autovacuum does it as daemon. > > > > The database is updated so frequently that > > > > normal vacuum costs too much and tables to be updated are > > > > not so many as the whole database is vacuumed. > > > > I want to use autovacuum except the feature of daemon, > > > > but want to control when to vacuum and which table to vacuum. > > > > So, nothing is different between autovacuum and smartvacuum(), > > > > but former is daemon and later is user function. > > > > > > This seems completely unconvincing. What are you going to do that > > > couldn't be done by autovacuum? > > > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > > -- > Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
