The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hannu Krosing) wrote:Christopher Browne kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 02:15:Well, actually, the case where it _would_ be troublesome would be
where there was a combination of huge tables needing vacuuming and
smaller ones that are _heavily_ updated (e.g. - account balances),
where pg_autovacuum might take so long on some big tables that it
wouldn't get to the smaller ones often enough.
Can't one just run a _separate_ VACUUM on those smaller tables ?
Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having a daemon that tries to manage this all for you.
It only shows where the daemon has potential for improvement. If it knows approximately the table sizes, it can manage a separate "passing" lane for the fast and high frequent commuters.
Jan
-- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
