| From: | Thomas F(dot)O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Understanding pg_autovacuum CPU Usage |
| Date: | 2004-09-02 03:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | 183F7600-FC94-11D8-9D1E-000D93AE0944@sitening.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sep 1, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Number of rows is irrelevant, but the number of tables might not be.
> It could be that the process of checking it's list of tables against
> the server might be slow when used with lots of tables. Does this cpu
> spike happen every other loop?
Is there an easy way to determine if it's happening every other loop?
> Try the simple recompile with the larger update interval first and see
> if that's the problem.
How difficult would it be to make this a command-line argument if it
turns out to be a run-time issue?
Thanks for the input.
-tfo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2004-09-02 04:49:47 | Re: The future of built-in geometric data types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-02 03:52:05 | Re: The future of built-in geometric data types |