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

Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of freshTOAST data

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Heavy write activity on first vacuum of freshTOAST data
Date: 2007-12-14 15:19:11
Message-ID: 47624A8E.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at  1:42 AM, in message <29185(dot)1197618162(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: 
 
> My feeling is that vacuum's purpose in life is to offload maintenance
> cycles from foreground queries, so we should be happy to have it setting
> all the hint bits.
 
Absolutely.
 
> If Kevin doesn't like the resultant I/O load then he
> should use the vacuum_cost_delay parameters to dial down vacuum speed.
 
It's not that I don't like it -- I'm often called upon to diagnose
issues, and understanding the dynamics of things like this helps me
interpret what I'm seeing.  No complaint here.
 
-Kevin
 



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bill MoranDate: 2007-12-14 15:25:26
Subject: Re: viewing source code
Previous:From: Roberts, JonDate: 2007-12-14 15:01:09
Subject: viewing source code

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