On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM, J Ramesh Kumar wrote:
> But the autovacuum is running frequently and it impact the performance of my
> system(high CPU). You can see the autovacuum in the pg_stat_activity.
Could you show us the system metrics that led you to believe it was
high CPU usage? Somet
On 02/12/11 07:18, Robert Haas wrote:
And also please share your views on my decision about disable autovacuum for
my application. I am planning to run vacuum command daily on that small
table which has frequent updates.
Sounds like a bad plan.
If the table has frequent updates vacuuming once
from what i ve read and have i ve seen in practice, i expected it to do
nothing at all. i just wanted to be absolutely sure and that's why i asked
here.
thank you very much for the clarification
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/vacuum-internals-and-perform
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM, J Ramesh Kumar wrote:
> Why the autovacuum is running even though, I disabled ? Am I miss anything ?
As Raghavendra says, anti-wraparound vacuum will always kick in to
prevent a database shutdown.
> And also please share your views on my decision about disable a
MirrorX,
> so when a transaction is still open from a while back (according to the
> transactionID), no 'new dead' tuples can be marked as re-usable space for
> new rows, right? by 'new dead' i mean that for example there is a
> transaction running from 10.00am(with a specific transactionID). when
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Benjamin Johnson
wrote:
> Experts,
>
> Quick Summary: data can now be inserted very quickly via COPY + removing
> indexes, but is there a design or some tricks to still allow someone to
> query while the partition is still active and 'hot' ?
>
> - Postgres 9.1
> -
