| From: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shelby Cain <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Phil Endecott <spam_from_postgresql_general(at)chezphil(dot)org>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CPU-intensive autovacuuming |
| Date: | 2005-06-11 01:23:06 |
| Message-ID: | D7880D9B-0571-4416-B9C0-F07C1927E1CE@sitening.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I was usleeping in tiny increments in each iteration of the loop. I
didn't try break it into iterative groups like this.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see pg_autovacuum improved to do O(n) rather
than O(n^2) table activity. At this point, though, I'm probably not
too likely to have much time to hack pg_autovacuum before 8.1 is
released, although if it doesn't become integrated by beta feature
freeze, I might give it a shot.
But I hope if anyone completes the linear improvement, they'll post
to the lists.
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-260-0005
On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Shelby Cain wrote:
> --- "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Were you sleeping every time through the loop? How about something
> like:
>
> if (j%500 == 1) usleep(100000)
>
> Regards,
>
> Shelby Cain
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hugo | 2005-06-11 12:34:02 | how to return a result set from a stored procedure |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2005-06-11 01:18:31 | Re: Now() function |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-11 06:02:01 | Re: Concrete proposal for large objects and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-06-10 23:07:59 | Re: The Contrib Roundup (long) |