On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> > interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> > need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> > concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> > vacuums very well.
>
> This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
> processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
> at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
> "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
> any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.
Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..
ByeShridhar
--
In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome
people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By hasku@rost.abo.fi,
Hasse Skrifvars)
