On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote: > "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.. Bye Shridhar -- In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hasse Skrifvars) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
