On 2016-05-06 20:28:27 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-05-06 19:43:24 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >> It's disappointing that I am not getting more consistent numbers, > >> but NUMA can be hard to manage that way. > > > > FWIW, in my experience, unless you disable autovacuum (or rather > > auto-analyze), the effects from non-predicable analyze runs with > > long-running snapshots are worse. I mean the numa effects suck, but in > > r/w workload effects of analyze are often much worse. > > Hm. But the benefits of the patch are not there if autovacuum is > off. I'm gonna need to ponder the best way to test given all that.
It's sufficient to set the threshhold for analyze very high, as vacuum itself doesn't have that problem. I basically just set autovacuum_analyze_threshold to INT_MAX , that alleviates the problem for normal runs. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
