From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Foreground vacuum and buffer access strategy |
Date: | 2012-05-29 18:58:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaFWZ0u0o9R+vuqb5KMwteYYQ=ktbWxGi0hQNktt_Mtqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If I invoke vacuum manually and do so with VacuumCostDelay == 0, I
> have basically declared my intentions to get this pain over with as
> fast as possible even if it might interfere with other processes.
>
> Under that condition, shouldn't it use BAS_BULKWRITE rather than
> BAS_VACUUM? The smaller ring size leads to a lot of synchronous WAL
> flushes which I think can slow the vacuum down a lot.
Of course, an autovacuum of a really big table could run too slowly,
too, even though it's not a foreground task.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-29 19:00:02 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-05-29 18:51:52 | Re: pg_basebackup --xlog compatibility break |