| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Background vacuum |
| Date: | 2007-05-18 03:22:04 |
| Message-ID: | 18134.1179458524@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Count me on the side that agrees adjusting the vacuuming parameters is
>> the more straightforward way to cope with this problem.
> Agreed for vacuum; but it still seems interesting to me that
> across databases and workloads high priority transactions
> tended to get through faster than low priority ones. Is there
> any reason to believe that the drawbacks of priority inversion
> outweigh the benefits of setting priorities?
Well, it's unclear, and anecdotal evidence is unlikely to convince
anybody. I had put some stock in the CMU paper, but if it's based
on PG 7.3 then you've got to **seriously** question its relevance
to the current code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Liviu Ionescu | 2007-05-18 09:02:44 | performance drop on 8.2.4, reverting to 8.1.4 |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-05-18 03:09:02 | Re: Background vacuum |