From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] MySQL benchmark page |
Date: | 1998-02-03 18:46:22 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.95.980203134501.14960g-100000@hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Herouth Maoz wrote:
> >
> > > At 15:01 +0200 on 2/2/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the garbage collection should be separated from the statistics.
> > > Garbage collection needs a write lock, statistics only a read lock. If they
> > > are not done at the same time, the various tables would be locked for
> > > shorter periods.
> >
> > Hrmmmm...good point, I think. Bruce? Vadim? When vacuum'ng a
> > large table, how much time is spend 'garbage collecting' vs 'statistics'?
> > I thought that 'vacuum analyze' *was* the statistics aspect of it? Where
> > just 'vacuum' was only garbage collection...?
>
> This is correct. Vacuum is fast, vacuum analyze is pretty slow. We
> could separate them, I guess, and that would eliminate the write-lock
> and be only a readlock.
Possible to slip it in for v6.3? Would make it so that an analyze
could be done nightly, to keep statistics up, and then a vacuum once a
week or so just for garbage collection...?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-03 19:25:04 | Re: vacuum analyze syntax in psql' help |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-03 18:22:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] MySQL benchmark page |