On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Seems fair. Updated patch attached.
If there are no further comments, I'll add some docs and apply it later.
If autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay is set to 20, my pitiful desktop system
takes 8.4 seconds to
I applied this patch some hours ago but I haven't gotten the
pgsql-committers mail and I don't see it in the archives either. Here
is the evidence:
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
Is there a problem with pgsql-committers again? Attached is the patch I
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Maybe something like this is better:
LOG: index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain tuples: removed 7199,
2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table database.public.w
Yours
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table alvherre.public.foo: index scans: 0
pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
system usage: CPU 0.29s/0.38u sec
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table alvherre.public.foo: index scans: 0
pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
system
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table alvherre.public.foo: index scans: 0
pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Perhaps we need this as an integer, so we can log all vacuums that last
for longer in seconds than the setting, 0 logs all. That would
significantly reduce the volume if we set it to 5, say. That way you
would get your readability
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table alvherre.public.foo: index scans: 0
pages: removed 0,
In response to Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table alvherre.public.foo: index scans: 0
pages: removed 0, 11226
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
lazy_vacuum_rel).
Maybe it should be in autovacuum.c.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:41 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
lazy_vacuum_rel).
When ANALYZE starts taking some time, we can
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
lazy_vacuum_rel).
Maybe it should be in autovacuum.c.
The only problem with this is that we
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
lazy_vacuum_rel).
Maybe it should be in autovacuum.c.
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, shouldn't the log entry distinguish whether this was VACUUM,
ANALYZE, or both?
We don't actually log anything for ANALYZE (the logging code is in
lazy_vacuum_rel).
Maybe it
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Seems fair. Updated patch attached.
If there are no further comments, I'll add some docs and apply it later.
If autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay is set to 20, my pitiful desktop system
takes 8.4 seconds to analyze a 8000 page table:
DEBUG: bar: scanned 3000 of 8811
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also think we should remove these DEBUG messages, that are now
useless:
DEBUG: autovac: will ANALYZE bar
+1, those were just ad-hoc.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 16:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
LOG: autovac public.w scans:1 pages:197(-0) tuples:2338(-7199) CPU
0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.39 sec
Seems like a pretty cryptic log format to me.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5:
Simon Riggs wrote:
log_autovacuum = on produces a single line of output from autovacuum,
with additional useful stats. Patch is proving useful in performance
testing. Not sure what is intended on logging for 8.3
LOG: autovac public.w scans:1 pages:197(-0) tuples:2338(-7199) CPU
On March 8, 2007 09:53 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
log_autovacuum = on produces a single line of output from autovacuum,
with additional useful stats. Patch is proving useful in performance
testing. Not sure what is intended on logging for 8.3
LOG: autovac public.w
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On March 8, 2007 09:53 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Keep in mind that it's going to be translated, so it's not useful for
machine parsing anyway.
This goes back to the request for vacuum loging to a table..
That's right, but please let's have at least *something*.
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Maybe something like this is better:
LOG: index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain tuples: removed 7199,
2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table database.public.w
Yours is better.
I've
Hi,
On 3/9/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Maybe something like this is better:
LOG: index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain tuples: removed
7199, 2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of
24 matches
Mail list logo
