Re: Size for vacuum_mem

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От scott.marlowe
Тема Re: Size for vacuum_mem
Дата
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.33.0212051657010.18114-100000@css120.ihs.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Size for vacuum_mem  ("David Blood" <david@matraex.com>)
Список pgsql-general
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, David Blood wrote:

> A "lazy vacuum" can hurt If you have lots of i/o.  If we try to run it
> during the day it kills us. This is because to vacuum all the tables
> postgres has to read them from the disk. While it doesn't not lock rows
> it does block other rows from reading/writing to/from the disk.

How much shared memory do you have allocated to Postgresql?

I've found that if I have a couple hundred megs of shared buffer on a
machine with 1 gig or more of ram, that lazy vacuums (in 7.2.x and later,
7.1 has massive problems with lazy vacuums acting up) don't seem to affect
performance much at all.

Vacuum on most my boxen results in no more than a 5% performance loss for
other queries (all types, select, update, delete, insert) but keeps the
database running well, even if they are running one vacuum right after
another.


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "scott.marlowe"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: the "/usr/local/pgsql/data" directory size
Следующее
От: "scott.marlowe"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Newbee question "Types"