| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance features the 4th |
| Date: | 2003-11-09 22:51:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3FAEC4E9.9010707@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
>>However, I have not seen much evidence yet that the vacuum delay alone
>>does that much.
>
>
> Gaetano and a couple of other people did experiments that seemed to show
> it was useful. I think we'd want to change the shape of the knob per
> later suggestions (sleep 10 ms every N blocks, instead of N ms every
> block) but it did seem that there was useful bang for little buck there.
Right, I'd like to try know the patch: "sleep N ms every M blocks".
Can you please post this patch ?
BTW, I'll see if I'm able to apply it also to a 7.3.X ( our production
DB).
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-11-09 23:09:52 | Re: Performance features the 4th |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-09 22:43:17 | Re: OSR5: Passes without the setsockopt() calls... |