From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum Delay feature |
Date: | 2004-02-13 04:20:53 |
Message-ID: | m33c9f6256.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) would write:
> I guess my question is that now that we have the new cache
> replacement policy, is the vacuum delay worth while. I looked at
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~wieck/vacuum_cost/ and does seem
> useful.
They satisfy quite separate use cases, so both are surely useful.
- The new cache replacement policy allows us to make sure that cache
isn't getting blown on worthless things.
- Vacuum delay allows us to make sure that we aren't spending all our
I/O on vacuuming.
There is overlap between their uses, as both should help diminish the
use of I/O to fill buffers with data that was discarded, but they
surely have separate uses.
--
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html
You know that little indestructible black box that is used on
planes---why can't they make the whole plane out of the same
substance?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-13 04:25:36 | Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-02-13 02:53:45 | Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-13 04:25:58 | Re: ANALYZE patch for review |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-13 02:03:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Delay feature |