Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Shridhar Daithankar
Тема Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Дата
Msg-id 3DE739C3.28840.467D16F@localhost
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:

> "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.

Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well.. 

ByeShridhar

--
In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome 
people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By hasku@rost.abo.fi, 
Hasse Skrifvars)



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: nested transactions
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: nested transactions