| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-22 19:24:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20070222192436.GN19527@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:35:45AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>
> > vacuum should be a process with the least amount of voodoo.
> > If we can just have vacuum_delay and vacuum_threshold, where
> > threshold allows an arbitrary setting of how much bandwidth
> > we will allot to the process, then that is a beyond wonderful thing.
> >
> > It is easy to determine how much IO you have, and what you can spare.
>
> The tricky part is what metric to use. Imho "IO per second" would be
> good.
> In a typical DB scenario that is the IO bottleneck, not the Mb/s.
Well, right now they're one in the same... but yeah, IO/sec probably
does make more sense.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2007-02-22 19:25:22 | Re: Column storage positions |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-22 19:23:05 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |