Re: Vacuum Delay feature

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum Delay feature
Date: 2004-02-13 04:20:53
Message-ID: m33c9f6256.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) would write:
> I guess my question is that now that we have the new cache
> replacement policy, is the vacuum delay worth while. I looked at
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~wieck/vacuum_cost/ and does seem
> useful.

They satisfy quite separate use cases, so both are surely useful.

- The new cache replacement policy allows us to make sure that cache
isn't getting blown on worthless things.

- Vacuum delay allows us to make sure that we aren't spending all our
I/O on vacuuming.

There is overlap between their uses, as both should help diminish the
use of I/O to fill buffers with data that was discarded, but they
surely have separate uses.
--
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html
You know that little indestructible black box that is used on
planes---why can't they make the whole plane out of the same
substance?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-02-13 04:25:36 Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2004-02-13 02:53:45 Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-02-13 04:25:58 Re: ANALYZE patch for review
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-02-13 02:03:53 Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Delay feature