| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | me(at)alternize(dot)com |
| Cc: | Michael Riess <mlriess(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 15,000 tables |
| Date: | 2005-12-01 21:16:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20051201211604.GA6375@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-es-ayuda pgsql-performance |
me(at)alternize(dot)com wrote:
> what i noticed is autovacuum not working properly as it should. i had 8.1
> running with autovacuum for just 2 days or so and got warnings in pgadmin
> that my tables would need an vacuum.
Hum, so how is autovacuum's documentation lacking? Please read it
critically and let us know so we can improve it.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/maintenance.html#AUTOVACUUM
Maybe what you need is to lower the "vacuum base threshold" for tables
that are small.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Ortiz | 2005-12-01 21:50:22 | Seguridad en tablas |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-12-01 21:15:59 | Re: 15,000 tables |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rick Schumeyer | 2005-12-01 22:18:38 | Re: COPY into table too slow with index: now an I/O question |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-12-01 21:15:59 | Re: 15,000 tables |