On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 15:14 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Even if it is off, DSM are always recorded and updated.
The purpose of the patch, as I understand it, is performance.
Can I ask what the performance overhead of this is for standard OLTP
Do you have some performance numbers for VACUUM with/without this patch?
Presumably it does speed things up considerably, but question is, how
Is there a point where you VACUUM more than x% of a table that it is
actually better to just VACUUM the whole thing, because of readahead?
Is there a size of table for which keeps dsm information is not
worthwhile? i.e. small tables
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-12-28 20:33:52|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and confusing|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-12-28 19:26:27|
|Subject: Re: pg_standby|