Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 29/08/14 08:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Robert Haas wrote: > > > >>I agree that you might not like that. But you might not like having > >>the table vacuumed slower than the configured rate, either. My > >>impression is that the time between vacuums isn't really all that > >>negotiable for some people. I had one customer who had horrible bloat > >>issues on a table that was vacuumed every minute; when we changed the > >>configuration so that it was vacuumed every 15 seconds, those problems > >>went away. > > > >Wow, that's extreme. For that case you can set > >autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit to 0, which disables the whole thing and > >lets vacuum run at full speed -- no throttling at all. Would that > >satisfy the concern? > > Well no - you might have a whole lot of big tables that you want > vacuum to not get too aggressive on, but a few small tables that are > highly volatile. So you want *them* vacuumed really fast to prevent > them becoming huge tables with only a few rows therein, but your > system might not be able to handle *all* your tables being vacuum > full speed.
I meant setting cost limit to 0 *for those tables* only, not for all of them. Anyway it seems to me maybe there is room for a new table storage parameter, say autovacuum_do_balance which means to participate in the balancing program or not. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
