From: | Ofer Israeli <oferi(at)checkpoint(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inserts or Updates |
Date: | 2012-02-07 19:12:01 |
Message-ID: | 217DDBC2BB1E394CA9E7446337CBDEF20102C056BE8E@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> You mean running a VACUUM statement manually? I would basically try to
>> avoid such a situation as the way I see it, the database should be
>> configured in such a manner that it will be able to handle the load at
>> any given moment and so I wouldn't want to manually intervene here. If
>> you think differently, I'll be happy to stand corrected.
>
> I do think differently.
>
> Autovacuum isn't perfect, and you shouldn't make it too aggressive
> since it does generate a lot of I/O activity. If you can pick a time
> where it will be able to run without interfering too much, running
> vacuum "manually" (where manually could easily be a cron task, ie,
> automatically but coming from outside the database software itself),
> you'll be able to dial down autovacuum and have more predictable load
> overall.
>
Something specific that you refer to in autovacuum's non-perfection, that is, what types of issues are you aware of?
As for the I/O - this is indeed true that it can generate much activity, but the way I see it, if you run performance tests and the tests succeed in all parameters even with heavy I/O, then you are good to go. That is, I don't mind the server doing lots of I/O as long as it's not causing lags in processing the messages that it handles.
Thanks,
Ofer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-02-07 19:20:46 | Re: Inserts or Updates |
Previous Message | Gudmundur Johannesson | 2012-02-07 17:59:33 | Re: Index with all necessary columns - Postgres vs MSSQL |