Re: AW: Why vacuum?
От | Daniele Orlandi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: Why vacuum? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3A390BCB.49702539@orlandi.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | AW: Why vacuum? (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why vacuum?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > If the priority is too low you will end up with the same behavior as current, Yes, and it is the intended behaviour. I'd use idle priority for it. > because the cache will be emptied by high priority multiple new rows, > thus writing to the end anyways. Yes, but this only happens when you don't have enought spare idle CPU time. If you are in such situation for long periods, there's nothing you can do, you already have problems. My approach in winning here because it allows you to have bursts of CPU utilization without being affected by the overhead of a overwriting smgr that (without hacks) will always try to find available slots, even in high load situations. > Conclusio: In those cases where overwrite would be most advantageous (high > volume modified table) your system won't work Why ? I have plenty of CPU time available on my server, even if one of my table is highly volatile, fast-changing. Bye!
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: