Re: vacuum output question

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Dan Armbrust
Тема
Re: vacuum output question
Дата
Msg-id
82f04dc40811140700n22437885q8b9b882a4d5130f2@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
vacuum output question "Dan Armbrust" <daniel.armbrust.list@gmail.com>
Re: vacuum output question Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: vacuum output question "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: vacuum output question Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Re: vacuum output question "Dan Armbrust" <daniel.armbrust.list@gmail.com>
Re: vacuum output question Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Re: vacuum output question Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Re: vacuum output question "Dan Armbrust" <daniel.armbrust.list@gmail.com>
>
> There was concurrent access to the table during VACUUMing, so the long
> delay is explainable as long waits for cleanup lock, plus probably
> thrashing the cache with bloated indexes. The CPU overhead per row seems
> OK. We should instrument the wait time during a VACUUM and report that
> also.
>
> --
>  Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
>  PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


Is that a guess?  Or something you can tell from the log above?
Because there shouldn't have been any concurrent access while the
VACUUM was run - the customers had failed over to a different system,
so while I can't be sure, I expect that there was no other database
activity at the time the command was run.

Thanks,

Dan
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Willy-Bas Loos
Дата:
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: vacuum output question
FAQ