From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Date: | 2005-06-16 03:45:45 |
Message-ID: | 200506152045.46130.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Gavin, People,
> I'm wondering if effort is being misdirected here. I remember when Mark
> Wong at OSDL was running pg_autovacuum during a dbt run, he was seeing
> significant performance loss -- I think on the order of 30% to 40% (I will
> try and dig up a link to the results).
It wasn't quite that bad, and the automated DBT2 is deceptive; the test
doesn't run for long enough for *not* vacuuming to be a problem. For a real
test, you'd need to do a 24-hour, or 48-hour DBT2 run.
Not that I don't agree that we need a less I/O intense alternative to VACUUM,
but it seems unlikely that we could actually do this, or even agree on a
spec, before feature freeze. Wheras integrated AV is something we *could*
do, and is widely desired.
If we do integrated AV, it should only be turned on by default at a relatively
low level. And wasn't there an issue on Windows with AV not working?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-06-16 03:55:47 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Previous Message | Russell Smith | 2005-06-16 03:45:04 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-06-16 03:55:47 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Previous Message | Russell Smith | 2005-06-16 03:45:04 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |