| 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 fresh TOAST data |
| Date: | 2007-12-14 15:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | 47624A8E.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2007-12-14 15:25:26 | Re: viewing source code |
| Previous Message | Roberts, Jon | 2007-12-14 15:01:09 | viewing source code |