From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-20 21:41:18 |
Message-ID: | 20965.1061415678@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
>> I disagree. Triggering a vacuum on a db that is nearly saturating the
>> disk bandwidth has a significant impact.
> Vivek is right about this. If your system is already very busy, then
> a vacuum on a largish table is painful.
> I don't actually think having the process done in real time will
> help, though -- it seems to me what would be more useful is an even
> lazier vacuum: something that could be told "clean up as cycles are
> available, but make sure you stay out of the way." Of course, that's
> easy to say glibly, and mighty hard to do, I expect.
I'd love to be able to do that, but I can't think of a good way.
Just nice'ing the VACUUM process is likely to be counterproductive
because of locking issues (priority inversion). Though if anyone cares
to try it on a heavily-loaded system, I'd be interested to hear the
results...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2003-08-20 21:41:41 | Re: Buglist |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-08-20 21:37:13 | Re: Collation rules and multi-lingual databases |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2003-08-20 21:41:41 | Re: Buglist |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-08-20 21:21:35 | Re: Buglist |