| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Background vacuum |
| Date: | 2007-05-19 22:38:12 |
| Message-ID: | 464F7C54.7090902@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Let's break this down into individual parts:
Great summary.
> 4) Is vacuuming a challenging I/O demand? Quite.
>
> Add all this up, and that fact that you're satisfied with how nice has
> worked successfully for you doesn't have to conflict with an opinion
> that it's not the best approach for controlling vacuuming. I just
> wouldn't extrapolate your experience too far here.
I wasn't claiming it's a the best approach for vacuuming.
From my first posting in this thread I've been agreeing that
vacuum_cost_delay is the better tool for handling vacuum. Just
that the original poster also asked for a way of setting priorities
so I pointed him to one.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-19 23:20:34 | Re: QP Problem |
| Previous Message | s d | 2007-05-19 22:08:07 | QP Problem |