From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance features the 4th |
Date: | 2003-11-07 20:25:58 |
Message-ID: | 004e01c3a56d$5a8eeb80$5200a8c0@TERRIE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gaetano and a couple of other people did experiments that seemed to show
> > it was useful. I think we'd want to change the shape of the knob per
> > later suggestions (sleep 10 ms every N blocks, instead of N ms every
> > block) but it did seem that there was useful bang for little buck there.
>
> I thought it was "sleep N ms every M blocks".
>
> Have we seen any numbers? Anything at all? Something that gives us a
> clue by what factor one has to multiply the total time a "VACUUM
> ANALYZE" takes, to get what effect in return?
I have some time on sunday to do some testing. Is there a patch that I can
apply that implements either of the two options? (sleep 10ms every M blocks
or sleep N ms every M blocks).
I know Tom posted the original patch that sleept N ms every 1 block (where N
is > 10 due to OS limitations). Jan can you post a patch that has just the
sleep code in it? Or should it be easy enough for me to cull out of the
larger patch you posted?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-07 20:28:45 | Re: What do you want me to do? |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-11-07 20:04:35 | Re: Timestamps on schema objects |