Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Matthew T. O'Connor
Тема Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Дата
Msg-id 4383882B.3040009@zeut.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1  ("Andrus" <eetasoft@online.ee>)
Ответы Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Список pgsql-general
Andrus wrote:
> Jim,
>
>> Keep in mind that if analyze has never been run on a table the database
>> will assume 1000 rows, which is definately off from 122 rows.
>>
>
> autovacuum processes this tabele regularly.
> I believed that autovacuum can update the row count to be real.

I think this is a poor choice of wording.  Autovacuum frequently creates
log entries that read something like:

LOG:  autovacuum: processing database "foo"

This implies that autovacuum has done something to that database, which
may or may not be the case.  All this message really means is that
autovacuum took at look at this database to see if there was any VACUUM
or ANALYZE operations that should be performed.  I think saying
"processing" implies that some action is being taken.

Also this creates a lot of noise in the log files.  I think it would be
better to downgrade this message to a NOTICE or even a DEBUG, and
replace it with a LOG level message that states when action has taken
place against the table.

Matt



В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Jim C. Nasby"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Следующее
От: "Thomas F. O'Connell"
Дата:
Сообщение: Index Administration: pg_index vs. pg_get_indexdef()