Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Date: 2002-11-29 04:26:19
Message-ID: 3DE739C3.28840.467D16F@localhost (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.. 


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)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-11-29 05:53:26
Subject: Re: nested transactions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-29 03:27:32
Subject: Re: nested transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group