From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: problems with new vacuum (??) |
Date: | 2002-01-02 18:12:03 |
Message-ID: | 200201021812.g02IC3q09418@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
> > But while this vacuum was running the rest of the system was performing
> > very poorly. Opperations that usually are subsecond, where taking
> > minutes to complete.
>
> Is this any different from the behavior of 7.1 vacuum? Also, what
> platform are you on?
>
> I've noticed on a Linux 2.4 box (RH 7.2, typical commodity-grade PC
> hardware) that vacuum, pgbench, or almost any I/O intensive operation
> drives interactive performance into the ground. I have not had an
> opportunity to try to characterize the problem, but I suspect Linux's
> disk I/O scheduler is not bright enough to prioritize interactive
> operations.
Just as a data point, I have not seen pgbench dramatically affect
performance on BSD/OS. Interactive sessions are just slightly slower
when then need to access the disk.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-02 18:13:32 | Re: problems with new vacuum (??) |
Previous Message | Holger Krug | 2002-01-02 17:58:31 | Re: Feature proposal: generalizing deferred trigger events |