Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:

> "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.

Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..

Bye
Shridhar

--
In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome
people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By hasku(at)rost(dot)abo(dot)fi,
Hasse Skrifvars)