On 29 Nov 2002 at 7:59, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:26, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..
> Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD
> (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps
Right.. But I will still keep option open for parallel vacuum which is most
useful for reusing tuples in shared buffers.. And stale updated tuples are what
causes performance drop in my experience..
You know.. just enough rope to hang themselves..;-)
Auction: A gyp off the old block.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-11-29 15:53:34|
|Subject: Re: nested transactions |
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2002-11-29 13:05:41|
|Subject: Re: nested transactions|