Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-24 Thread Hitoshi Harada
?? > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hitoshi Harada > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:10 AM > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-23 Thread Matthew O'Connor
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-23 Thread Tom Lane
"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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-23 Thread Jim C. Nasby
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-22 Thread Hitoshi Harada
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:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
"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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-22 Thread Hitoshi Harada
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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

2006-10-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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)