Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Date: 2002-11-28 15:45:39
Message-ID: 14410.1038498339@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> interesting thought.  I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> vacuums very well.

This is almost certainly a bad idea.  vacuum is not very
processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive.  Multiple vacuums running
at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
"background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is.  I can't see
any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2002-11-28 16:06:25
Subject: Alter table .. Add primary key
Previous:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2002-11-28 15:34:28
Subject: Re: next value expression

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group