Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Date: 2002-11-28 15:45:39
Message-ID: 14410.1038498339@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> vacuums very well.

This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
"background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2002-11-28 16:06:25 Alter table .. Add primary key
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2002-11-28 15:34:28 Re: next value expression