Glen Parker wrote: > Brandon Aiken wrote: >> You're saying that the dirtyness of a table is proportional to when you >> plan on vacuuming it next. > > The dirtiness of a table should most certainly have an effect on when it > gets vacuumed in relation to other tables. If dirtiness could be rated, > then the list of vacuumable tables could be sorted, vacuuming really > dirty tables before less dirty ones. Wouldn't it be better to prefer small(er) less dirty tables over large to huge dirty tables? They'd be done quickly, and as it's inside the "maintenance window" there is apparently time to. It'd probably need some logic as to how many of those small tables get vacuumed first (the total amount should be significantly less than the big table(s)). My rationale: if the really dirty huge table doesn't get finished in time anyway, autovacuum might as well spend some time on other tables. The net performance after the maintenance window will probably be better. -- Alban Hertroys alban@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx magproductions b.v. T: ++31(0)534346874 F: ++31(0)534346876 M: I: www.magproductions.nl A: Postbus 416 7500 AK Enschede // Integrate Your World //
