From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Rick <richard(dot)branton(at)ca(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum strategy / parameters |
Date: | 2010-05-01 19:08:48 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimzCzICjjgrhGukmYX8adpzRDYhsEqD9s_80Dhy@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Which is the opposite of my experience; currently we have several
>> clients who have issues which required more-frequent analyzes on
>> specific tables. Before 8.4, vacuuming more frequently, especially on
>> large tables, was very costly; vacuum takes a lot of I/O and CPU. Even
>> with 8.4 it's not something you want to increase without thinking about
>> the tradeoff
>
> Actually I would think that statement would be be that before 8.3
> vacuum was much more expensive. The changes to vacuum for 8.4 mostly
> had to do with moving FSM to disk, making seldom vacuumed tables
> easier to keep track of, and making autovac work better in the
> presence of long running transactions. The ability to tune IO load
> etc was basically unchanged in 8.4.
What about http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/storage-vm.html ?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-01 19:17:12 | Re: autovacuum strategy / parameters |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-01 17:25:40 | Re: autovacuum strategy / parameters |