On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:37:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The proposal to save enough state to be able to resume a vacuum at > > pretty much any point in it's cycle might work; we'd have to benchmark > > it. With the default maintenance_work_mem of 128M it would mean writing > > out 64M of state every minute on average, which is likely to take > > several seconds to fsync (though, maybe we wouldn't need to fsync it...) > > Which is exactly why we needn't bother benchmarking it. Even if it > weren't complex and unsafe, it will be a net loss when you consider the > fact that it adds I/O instead of removing it.
Well, it depends on how often you're doing that. Adding extra IO at the end of 4 hours of vacuuming isn't going to make any real difference, but once a minute... Looks like partial vacuum won't help this problem. :( -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
