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 13:19:11
Message-ID: 3DE7B6A7.787.64FAF1C@localhost (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 Nov 2002 at 7:59, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:

> On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:26, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 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..
> Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD 
> (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps 
> preferrable. 

Right.. But I will still keep option open for parallel vacuum which is most 
useful for reusing tuples in shared buffers.. And stale updated tuples are what 
causes performance drop in my experience..

You know.. just enough rope to hang themselves..;-)


Auction:	A gyp off the old block.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-29 15:53:34
Subject: Re: nested transactions
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2002-11-29 13:05:41
Subject: Re: nested transactions

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