| From: | Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: XIDs and big boxes again ... |
| Date: | 2008-05-12 07:05:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4827EC52.4040405@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>
>>
>> overhead is not an issue here - if i lose 10 or 15% i am totally fine
>> as long as i can reduce vacuum overhead to an absolute minimum.
>> overhead will vary with row sizes anyway - this is not the point.
>
> I am not buying this argument. If you have a 5TB database, I am going
> to assume you put it on enterprise class hardware. Enterprise class
> hardware can handle the I/O required to appropriately run vacuum.
>
> We have a customer that is constantly running 5 autovacuum workers on
> only 28 spindles. We are in the process of upgrading them to 50
> spindles at which point I will likely try 10 autovacuum workers.
>
i forgot to mention - i am on 8.1 here.
so, VACUUM is not so smart yet.
my changes are pretty much random I/O - so tuple header does not
contribute to a lot more I/O as i have to read entire blocks anway.
this is why i said - it is not that kind of an issue.
and no, updating is not a 5 min task ...
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql-support.de, www.postgresql-support.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-05-12 07:18:54 | Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-05-12 03:43:14 | Re: another ecpg crash |