Ok, but what I'm curious to do is see if you run the non-pg_autovacuum
test for a "long time" (4 hours? more?) when does it get slower that
running with pg_autovacuum. And, can you demonstrate that running the
tests with pg_autovacuum for a long time (say 4 hours) that the
performance stays steady.
Also, I would very much like to see this test run with pg_autovacuum and
it's vacuum delay settings enabled.
Matthew
ps: I know time is limited and these tests take a lot of time to run, so
please take my requests with a grain of salt, all I'm saying is that I
think these would be interesting results to see.
Mark Wong wrote:
>Yeah, same hardware and database configuration.
>
>No manual vacuum commands before. The decline in performance has been
>pretty consistent in all my previous tests and people have told me on
>many occasions that the decline in performance was probably because I
>was never using vacuum...
>
>Mark
>
>On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:48:52AM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>
>
>>I'm curious, the original run you posted with 3825 NOTPM is still 17%
>>faster than the latest pg_autovacuum run which shows 3280 NOTPM. Is
>>this on the same hardware? Also, did the original non-pg_autovacuum run
>>any manual vacuum commands? Also, does the non-pg_autovacuum run start
>>slowing down after a while? The graphs look like there is a slight
>>decline in performance as time goes on, what happens if you double the
>>length of the test?
>>
>>Thanks for doing the testing!
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>>