Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070222192436.GN19527@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:35:45AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > vacuum should be a process with the least amount of voodoo. > > If we can just have vacuum_delay and vacuum_threshold, where > > threshold allows an arbitrary setting of how much bandwidth > > we will allot to the process, then that is a beyond wonderful thing. > > > > It is easy to determine how much IO you have, and what you can spare. > > The tricky part is what metric to use. Imho "IO per second" would be > good. > In a typical DB scenario that is the IO bottleneck, not the Mb/s. Well, right now they're one in the same... but yeah, IO/sec probably does make more sense. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: