Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
Subject Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Date
Msg-id E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901CAF5E0@m0143.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 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.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Nikolay Samokhvalov"
Date:
Subject: Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: SCMS question