Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 14410.1038498339@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> vacuums very well.
This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
"background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: