Christopher Browne wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Stephen" <jleelim(at)xxxxxxx(dot)com> would write:
>>As it turns out. With vacuum_page_delay = 0, VACUUM took 1m20s (80s)
>>to complete, with vacuum_page_delay = 1 and vacuum_page_delay = 10,
>>both VACUUMs completed in 18m3s (1080 sec). A factor of 13 times!
>>This is for a single 350 MB table.
> While it is unfortunate that the minimum quanta seems to commonly be
> 10ms, it doesn't strike me as an enormous difficulty from a practical
If we can't lower the minimum quanta, we could always vacuum 2 pages
before sleeping 10ms, effectively sleeping 5ms.
vacuum_page_per_delay = 2
vacuum_time_per_delay = 10
What would be interesting would be pg_autovacuum changing these values
per table, depending on current I/O load.
Hmmm. Looks like there's a lot of interesting things pg_autovacuum can do:
1. When on low I/O load, running multiple vacuums on different, smaller
tables on full speed, careful to note that these vacuums will increase
the I/O load as well.
2. When on high I/O load, vacuum big, busy tables slowly.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2003-11-04 04:28:25|
|Subject: Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-11-04 04:01:15|
|Subject: Re: 7.4RC1 tag'd, branched and bundled ... |