| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 17:20:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE2BD58.5050801@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.11.2010 18:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable, but you know what would be even better? Use less
memory in vacuum, so that it doesn't become an issue to begin with.
There was some discussion on that back in 2007
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01814.php).
That seems like low-hanging fruit, it should be simple to switch to more
compact representation. I believe you could easily more than half the
memory consumption in typical scenarios.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-16 17:27:05 | Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-11-16 17:19:53 | Re: Explain analyze getrusage tracking |