From: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Prioritizing queries |
Date: | 2004-09-21 21:04:26 |
Message-ID: | 20040921210426.GB28826@gp.word-to-the-wise.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:24:21PM -0400, Christopher Petrilli wrote:
> Has anyone investigated having either high, or low urgency queries? A
> system I'm working on has a constant inflow of data, which has some
> queries gainst it which might require long sequential scans. I'm not
> that worried about how long those queries take, just that they don't
> interfere with other insertions.
>
> This is a bit DSSish, I guess, but I would think it could be managed
> by nicing processes?
I'd like this feature on some boxes that are being pushed a bit too
close to the limit for comfort.
I've played around with some of the crude ways of doing it. Disk I/O
tends to be the resource that's limited, and process niceness won't
affect that. You'd need to do something like explicitly do a nanosleep
for every X blocks read in by a query or somesuch. Perhaps a
generalization of the vacuum-sleep hack.
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Murphy | 2004-09-21 21:07:03 | Re: the current scoop on ilike and indexes |
Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-21 20:52:26 | Re: the current scoop on ilike and indexes |