Re: Performance features the 4th

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance features the 4th
Date: 2003-11-07 19:33:00
Message-ID: 3FABF36C.4060109@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> However, I have not seen much evidence yet that the vacuum delay alone
>> does that much.
>
> Gaetano and a couple of other people did experiments that seemed to show
> it was useful. I think we'd want to change the shape of the knob per
> later suggestions (sleep 10 ms every N blocks, instead of N ms every
> block) but it did seem that there was useful bang for little buck there.

I thought it was "sleep N ms every M blocks".

Have we seen any numbers? Anything at all? Something that gives us a
clue by what factor one has to multiply the total time a "VACUUM
ANALYZE" takes, to get what effect in return?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-11-07 19:34:53 Timestamps on schema objects
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-11-07 19:22:00 Re: [HACKERS] Changes to Contributor List