On Nov 30, 2007 5:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So: show me a use case for this that will still make sense in a > > mostly-autovacuum world. > > I think you are living in a different world than I am if you think it > is a mostly-autovacuum world. Same here. > Yes autovacuum is great for general low use scenarios. Throw it at a > database doing hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of transactions > an hour that has relations that in the multiple hundred gig range and > autovacuum is useless for a good portion of that database. Yes, this is precisely the case I'm talking about. Every single high-volume client we have or have consulted for is using custom vacuuming. Autovacuum works fine for the common case, but it doesn't handle high-volume databases very well yet. > The thing is, it isn't nearly as special case for my environments. I > have many customers, with many tables where autovacuum just doesn't cut > it. We turn it on for say 80% of the relations but guess what... the > important relations are still on some type of schedule through > something like cron. > > I get your argument but surely adding SCHEMA isn't that much of a code > bloat scenario. We don't even have to add another reserved word... Agreed. It's very simple and won't add much code at all. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
