Re: Performance features the 4th

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance features the 4th
Date: 2003-11-07 20:25:58
Message-ID: 004e01c3a56d$5a8eeb80$5200a8c0@TERRIE
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gaetano and a couple of other people did experiments that seemed to show
> > it was useful. I think we'd want to change the shape of the knob per
> > later suggestions (sleep 10 ms every N blocks, instead of N ms every
> > block) but it did seem that there was useful bang for little buck there.
>
> I thought it was "sleep N ms every M blocks".
>
> Have we seen any numbers? Anything at all? Something that gives us a
> clue by what factor one has to multiply the total time a "VACUUM
> ANALYZE" takes, to get what effect in return?

I have some time on sunday to do some testing. Is there a patch that I can
apply that implements either of the two options? (sleep 10ms every M blocks
or sleep N ms every M blocks).

I know Tom posted the original patch that sleept N ms every 1 block (where N
is > 10 due to OS limitations). Jan can you post a patch that has just the
sleep code in it? Or should it be easy enough for me to cull out of the
larger patch you posted?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-11-07 20:28:45 Re: What do you want me to do?
Previous Message Dave Page 2003-11-07 20:04:35 Re: Timestamps on schema objects