Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

> If the decision to vacuum based on autovacuum criteria is good enough
> for you then I think you should just focus on getting autovac to do what
> you want it to do. Perhaps you just need to decrease the sleep time to a
> few seconds, so that autovac will quickly detect when something needs to
> be vacuumed.

Thanks, I'll do it.
My database is updated frequently all the day and 
runs big building process a day.
Almost all the day autovac is ok but
in the big building process autovac annoys it, 
so I wished there might be the way to order autovac to do its process.


Hitoshi Harada


> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:36 AM
> To: Hitoshi Harada
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; 'Peter Eisentraut'; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum
> 
> If the decision to vacuum based on autovacuum criteria is good enough
> for you then I think you should just focus on getting autovac to do what
> you want it to do. Perhaps you just need to decrease the sleep time to a
> few seconds, so that autovac will quickly detect when something needs to
> be vacuumed.
> 
> The only case I can think of where autovac might not work as well as
> smartvacuum would be if you had a lot of databases in the cluster, since
> autovacuum will only vacuum one database at a time.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:18:39AM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> > Ok,
> >
> > But my point is, autovacuum may corrupt with vacuum analyze command
> > on another session. My intention of smartvacuum() is based on this.
> > Any solution for this??
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Hitoshi Harada
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:10 AM
> > > To: Hitoshi Harada
> > > Cc: 'Peter Eisentraut'; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum
> > >
> > > "Hitoshi Harada" <hitoshi_harada@forcia.com> writes:
> > > >> How is this different from what autovacuum does?
> > >
> > > > My application needs to do vacuum by itself, while
> > > > autovacuum does it as daemon.
> > > > The database is updated so frequently that
> > > > normal vacuum costs too much and tables to be updated are
> > > > not so many as the whole database is vacuumed.
> > > > I want to use autovacuum except the feature of daemon,
> > > > but want to control when to vacuum and which table to vacuum.
> > > > So, nothing is different between autovacuum and smartvacuum(),
> > > > but former is daemon and later is user function.
> > >
> > > This seems completely unconvincing.  What are you going to do that
> > > couldn't be done by autovacuum?
> > >
> > >             regards, tom lane
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> 
> --
> Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
> EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq