Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3DE4BAA1.10307.325CD95@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 Nov 2002 at 21:54, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > First: Do we want AVD integrated into the main source tree, or should it > remain a "tool" that can be downloaded from gborg. I would think it > should be controlled by the postmaster, and configured from GUC (at > least basic on off settings) Since you have rewritten in C, I think it can be safely added to contrib, after core team agrees. It is a good place for such things. > Second: Assuming we want it integrated into the source tree, can it > remain a client app? Can a non backend program that connects to the > postmaster using libpq be a child of the postmaster that the postmaster > can control (start and stop). I would not like postmaster forking into pgavd app. As far as possible, we should not touch the core. This is a client app. and be it that way. Once we integrate it into backend, we need to test the integration as well. Why bother? > Anyway for you reading pleasure, I have attached a plot of results from > a simple test program I wrote. As you can see from the plot, AVD keeps > the file size under control. Also, the first few Xacts are faster in > the non AVD case, but after that AVD keeps the average Xact time down. > The periodic spikes in the AVD run correspond to when the AVD has fired > off a vacuum. Also when the table file gets to approx 450MB performance > drops off horribly I assume this is because my system can no longer > cache the whole file (I have 512M in my machine). Also, I had been > developing against 7.2.3 until recently, and I wound up doing some of > these benchmarks against both 7.2.3 and 7.3devel and 7.3 perfoms much > better, that is it 7.2 slowed down much sooner under this test. Good to know that it works. I would like to comment w.r.t to my original effort. 1) I intentionally left vacuum full to admin. Disk space is cheap and we all know that but IMO no application should lock a table without admin knowing it. This is kinda microsoftish assumption of user friendliness to make decision on behalf of users. Of course, sending admin a notigication is a good idea.. 2)In a cluster if there are many databases and time taken for serial vacuum is more than time gap between two wake-up intervals of AVD, it would get into a continous vacuum. At some point of time, we are going to need one connection per database in separate process/thread. Thanks for your work.. ByeShridhar -- Distinctive, adj.: A different color or shape than our competitors.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: