| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |
| Date: | 2007-06-20 18:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20070620180628.GQ30369@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Karl Wright wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Karl Wright wrote:
> >>I am afraid that I did answer this. My largest tables are the ones
> >>continually being updated. The smaller ones are updated only
> >>infrequently.
> >
> >Can you afford to vacuum them in parallel?
>
> Hmm, interesting question. If VACUUM is disk limited then it wouldn't
> help, probably, unless I moved various tables to different disks
> somehow. Let me think about whether that might be possible.
Well, is it disk limited? Do you have the vacuum_delay stuff enabled?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/
"I would rather have GNU than GNOT." (ccchips, lwn.net/Articles/37595/)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Stone | 2007-06-20 18:08:55 | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |
| Previous Message | Karl Wright | 2007-06-20 18:03:28 | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |