On 9/22/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com> writes:
> Please try that experiment with all three configurations on both
> versions:
> * autovacuum off
> * autovacuum on, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0
> * autovacuum on, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 20
I'll do it during the week-end.
> Comparing apples and oranges isn't real helpful in determining
> what's happening.
I'm not exactly comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing default
configuration of autovacuum for both versions.
IMHO, the point is not to compare both versions but to see what we can
do to improve the fact that 3 autovacuum processes analyzing the data
while restoring them introduces a lot of overhead.
--
Guillaume