RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long - Mailing list pgsql-ports

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.05.9901071310460.42675-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long  ("Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson@cpsgroup.com>)
List pgsql-ports
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Jackson, DeJuan wrote:

> With MVCC an occasional 'vacuum analyze' should only be noticed from the
> performance improvements.  As far as I can tell most of the work done by
> an analyze is in reading the table data.  If you make sure to write the
> new information at the end of the transaction you only lock the indexes
> for the amount of time it takes to write them.
>
> I see a 'vacuum analyze' being less of a problem than 'vacuum'.
> Any of you experts can contradict my assumptions.

Good point...I seem to recall that at one point, there was a lock imposed
on one of hte pg_ tables when a vacuum is tarted, since it has to update a
couple of the rows in that table...has that lock been removed with MVCC?
Vadim?



Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org


pgsql-ports by date:

Previous
From: "Jackson, DeJuan"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long
Next
From: "Jackson, DeJuan"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long