| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum I/O throttling |
| Date: | 2003-09-02 04:17:28 |
| Message-ID: | 18501.1062476248@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com> writes:
> What sort of performance numbers are you looking for? Without the throttle,
> I/O is nuked and other database activity takes an age, and with it, its much
> happier?
Some people say that VACUUM nukes their performance, and some don't
find it to be a problem. AFAICT, it's only an issue if you have little
reserve disk bandwidth, which in itself is a dangerous situation for a
database that you don't want to pay attention to.
I don't want to sound like I'm rejecting your patch out of hand. What
I do want is to get some idea of its range of usefulness.
> We are beginning to learn that "DBMS" and "unattended" dont belong in the
> same sentence.
"Unattended" and "running on the edge of your resources" don't play nice
together, for sure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dinar | 2003-09-02 07:00:32 | Is it bug??? |
| Previous Message | Bupp Phillips | 2003-09-02 01:28:47 | Re: session variable |