Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Csaba Nagy wrote: > > > > > Now when the queue tables get 1000 times dead space compared to their > > > normal size, I get performance problems. So tweaking vacuum cost delay > > > doesn't buy me anything, as not vacuum per se is the performance > > > problem, it's long run time for big tables is. > > > > So for you it would certainly help a lot to be able to vacuum the first > > X pages of the big table, stop, release locks, create new transaction, > > continue with the next X pages, lather, rinse, repeat. > > But what about index clearing? When do you scan each index?
At the end of each iteration (or earlier, depending on maintenance_work_mem). So for each iteration you would need to scan the indexes. Maybe we could make maintenance_work_mem be the deciding factor; after scanning the indexes, do the release/reacquire locks cycle. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
