| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 #
| 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 |