Re: cost-based vacuum
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: cost-based vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1121270150.3970.256.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: cost-based vacuum (Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: cost-based vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 13:50 -0400, Ian Westmacott wrote: > It appears not to matter whether it is one of the tables > being written to that is ANALYZEd. I can ANALYZE an old, > quiescent table, or a system table and see this effect. Can you confirm that this effect is still seen even when the ANALYZE doesn't touch *any* of the tables being accessed? > - this is a dual Xeon. Is that Xeon MP then? > - Looking at oprofile reports for 10-minute runs of a > database-wide VACUUM with vacuum_cost_delay=0 and 1000, > shows the latter spending a lot of time in LWLockAcquire > and LWLockRelease (20% each vs. 2%). Is this associated with high context switching also? Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: