Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-02-28 kell 19:47, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > Due to current implementation of vacuum,
> > you have to abandon continuous vacuuming during vacuum of bigtable, but
> > i have written and submitted to "patches" list a patch which allows
> > vacuums not to block each other out, this is stalled due to Tom's
> > "unesyness" about its possible hidden effects, but it should be
> > available from "patches" list to anyone in distress :p
>
> Do you use it in production? Have you noticed any ill effects?
No, I don't run it in production at this time, as I solved the immediate
problem by splitting small and big tables to different databases and
having client applications rewritten accordingly.
I did run a parallel load (queries from log of real database, plus
parallel vacuums on tables) for some time and saw no ill effects there.
I will likely start using it in production on some databases during next
few months as new restructuring of databases brings back the case where
huge and tiny tables are in the same database.
--------------
Hannu
