Re: possible vacuum improvement?
От | Richard Tucker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: possible vacuum improvement? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | EKEKLEKKLDAEEKDBDMMAKENPCEAA.richt@peerdirect.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: possible vacuum improvement? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
How about counting the number of dead tuples examined and the number of live tuples returned. As the ratio of dead tuples over live tuples visited increases the table becomes a candidate for vacuuming. -regards richt > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:25 PM > To: Mario Weilguni > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible vacuum improvement? > > > "Mario Weilguni" <mario.weilguni@icomedias.com> writes: > > That brings me to another point, can't the > > statistics collector used for that? > > Hmm, that would be a different way of attacking the problem. Not sure > offhand which is better, but it'd surely be worth considering both. > > Note that collecting of dead-tuple counts requires input from aborted > transactions as well as successful ones. I don't recall whether the > stats collector currently collects anything from aborted xacts; that > might or might not be a sticky point. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: