Re: is autovacuum recommended?
От | Willy-Bas Loos |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is autovacuum recommended? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1dd6057e0907101347y56a7eea3u31f793ff0ffe1ed4@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is autovacuum recommended? (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: is autovacuum recommended?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi,
Thanks for your answers!
I'm using 8.1 and 8.2 on windows2003 servers, and it's true that i could probably configure them much better.
We've recently moved to brand new dedicated database servers with pg8.3 on debian in 2 projects and it has been much easier to configure these correctly. There I don't encounter the probems that i described.
The thing is that the whole concept of autovacuum is not feeling right.
Per design, the vacuum is likely to kick off when i am doing something big.
And when i am doing something big, a vacuum is the last thing i'd wish for. I'd wish for a vacuum when the database is doing nothing at all, but the autovacuum will NEVER kick off in such a moment.
That's why i feel better scheduling the vacuum at times at which i know things will be generally quiet.
To be honest, i am a bit surprised that all 3 reactions recommend using autovacuum, even if it means i have to buy a new server for this purpouse.
I was thinking that autovacuum was just a mechanism to ensure that postgres works well out of the box, but that it would be recommended to schedule your own vacuum tailored to your specific needs.
I agree though, that it is a tough tailoring job and that the autovacuum must be doing a better job than i am. It just fires at the wrong time.
Just a thought (to think positively..): wouldn't it be possible to let the autovacuum wait until the load goes down, or until the end of the transaction that triggered the autovacuum?
Cheers,
WBL
Thanks for your answers!
I'm using 8.1 and 8.2 on windows2003 servers, and it's true that i could probably configure them much better.
We've recently moved to brand new dedicated database servers with pg8.3 on debian in 2 projects and it has been much easier to configure these correctly. There I don't encounter the probems that i described.
The thing is that the whole concept of autovacuum is not feeling right.
Per design, the vacuum is likely to kick off when i am doing something big.
And when i am doing something big, a vacuum is the last thing i'd wish for. I'd wish for a vacuum when the database is doing nothing at all, but the autovacuum will NEVER kick off in such a moment.
That's why i feel better scheduling the vacuum at times at which i know things will be generally quiet.
To be honest, i am a bit surprised that all 3 reactions recommend using autovacuum, even if it means i have to buy a new server for this purpouse.
I was thinking that autovacuum was just a mechanism to ensure that postgres works well out of the box, but that it would be recommended to schedule your own vacuum tailored to your specific needs.
I agree though, that it is a tough tailoring job and that the autovacuum must be doing a better job than i am. It just fires at the wrong time.
Just a thought (to think positively..): wouldn't it be possible to let the autovacuum wait until the load goes down, or until the end of the transaction that triggered the autovacuum?
Cheers,
WBL
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: