Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, "Ron Mayer" <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Date: 2007-02-22 08:35:45
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901CAF5E0@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> vacuum should be a process with the least amount of voodoo.
> If we can just have vacuum_delay and vacuum_threshold, where
> threshold allows an arbitrary setting of how much bandwidth
> we will allot to the process, then that is a beyond wonderful thing.
>
> It is easy to determine how much IO you have, and what you can spare.

The tricky part is what metric to use. Imho "IO per second" would be
good.
In a typical DB scenario that is the IO bottleneck, not the Mb/s.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-02-22 09:48:29 Re: SCMS question
Previous Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2007-02-22 08:32:56 Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?