Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@it.is.rice.edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>, Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb@commandprompt.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan@enterprisedb.com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-01-22T19:24:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Hold that thought! Read Heikki's Piggyback VACUUM idea on new thread...
> 
> There may be other functions that could leverage a similar sort of
> infrastructure. For example, a long DB mining query could be registered
> with the system. Then as the pieces of the table/database are brought in
> to shared memory during the normal daily DB activity they can be acquired
> without forcing the DB to run a very I/O expensive query when waiting a
> bit for the results would be acceptable. As long as we are thinking
> piggyback.

Yeah, I had the same idea when we discussed synchronizing sequential 
scans. The biggest difference is that with queries, there's often a user 
waiting for the query to finish, but with vacuum we don't care so much 
how long it takes.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com