??
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Hitoshi Harada
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:10 AM
> > >
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:08:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 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 w
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:08:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 a
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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.
It's conceivable that it'd make sense to
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
It's conceivable that it'd make sense to allow multiple
to:[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
> >
> > &q
lf 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:
"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 m
Hi, Peter,
> 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 wa
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I am trying to implement smartvacuum(), which do vacuum only tables
> having many dead rows, instead of autovacuum.
How is this different from what autovacuum does?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)
10 matches
Mail list logo