Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-09-22 16:17:37
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10709220917v37539e13wce875b2f23db68c0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/22/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Please try that experiment with all three configurations on both
> versions:
> * autovacuum off
> * autovacuum on, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0
> * autovacuum on, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20

I'll do it during the week-end.

> Comparing apples and oranges isn't real helpful in determining
> what's happening.

I'm not exactly comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing default
configuration of autovacuum for both versions.
IMHO, the point is not to compare both versions but to see what we can
do to improve the fact that 3 autovacuum processes analyzing the data
while restoring them introduces a lot of overhead.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-09-22 20:40:25 Re: [HACKERS] msvc, build and install with cygwin in the PATH
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-22 15:38:52 Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher