Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the msot recent vacuum for the "active" table. It gets a few
> hundred updates/inserts a minute constantly throughout the day.
> INFO: Pages 27781: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 2451648: Vac 0, Keep 0, UnUsed
> 1003361.
> Total CPU 2.18s/0.61u sec elap
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 17:40, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Unfortunately, a "configurable-via-tables" pg_autovacuum is also going
> to be quite different from the current "unconfigurable" version.
true, however I would like to preserve the "unconfigured" functionality
so that it can be run against a
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since pg_autovaccum is a contrib module does that mean I can make functional
> > changes that will be included in point release of 7.4?
>
> Well, the bar is lower for contrib stuff than for core, but you'd better
> get such ch
> >> is some other problem that needs to be solved. (I'd wonder about
> >> index correlation myself; we know that that equation is pretty
> >> bogus.)
> >
> >Could be. I had him create a multi-column index on the date and a
> >non-unique highly redundant id.
>
> Tom has already suspected index c
Medora Schauer wrote:
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could run this code in their
environment and let me know if you get results similiar to mine.
The INT test results in execution times of 11 - 50+ secs increasing
each time the test is run. The FLOAT test execution times are
consistentl
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> I would suggest autovacuum daemon which is in CVS contrib works for 7.3.x as
> well.. Or schedule a vacuum analyze every 15 minutes or so..
> >
Good Call. I'll give that a whirl and let you know.
> I think vacuum full is required.
>
D'oh. Would
From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 5 Aug 2003 at 10:29, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > There would be some merit to having pg_autovacuum throw in some tables
> > in which to store persistent information,
>
> Well, the C++ version I wrote quite a whi
Scott
>For example, a dedicated database for a webserver would be tuned
>differently from a server that was running both the webserver and the database on
>the same machine.
This is the situation I'm having fun and games with so I'd be very interested.
(Client has made the mistake of putting M
