| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware |
| Date: | 2021-01-07 02:42:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmYs3weR3nNkVu13dEn2B8jpuF9J_8YPF1hsPsko5wZBw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:39 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Perhaps you meant to decrease vacuumm_cost_page_miss instead of
> vacuum_cost_page_dirty?
You're right. Evidently I didn't write this email very carefully.
Sorry about that.
To say it again: I think that a miss (without dirtying the page)
should be cheaper than dirtying a page. This thread began because I
wanted to discuss the relative cost of different kinds of I/O
operations to VACUUM, without necessarily discussing the absolute
costs/time delays.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-01-07 02:45:29 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-01-07 02:25:41 | RE: Enhance traceability of wal_level changes for backup management |