| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, dave(at)turbocat(dot)de, ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| Date: | 1999-01-07 17:12:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.05.9901071310460.42675-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Jackson, DeJuan wrote:
> With MVCC an occasional 'vacuum analyze' should only be noticed from the
> performance improvements. As far as I can tell most of the work done by
> an analyze is in reading the table data. If you make sure to write the
> new information at the end of the transaction you only lock the indexes
> for the amount of time it takes to write them.
>
> I see a 'vacuum analyze' being less of a problem than 'vacuum'.
> Any of you experts can contradict my assumptions.
Good point...I seem to recall that at one point, there was a lock imposed
on one of hte pg_ tables when a vacuum is tarted, since it has to update a
couple of the rows in that table...has that lock been removed with MVCC?
Vadim?
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-01-07 17:31:06 | Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site |
| Previous Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-07 16:43:07 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-07 17:31:56 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| Previous Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-07 16:43:07 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |