On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:17:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Guy Thornley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What sort of performance numbers are you looking for? Without the throttle,
> > I/O is nuked and other database activity takes an age, and with it, its much
> > happier?
>
> Some people say tha
Guy Thornley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What sort of performance numbers are you looking for? Without the throttle,
> I/O is nuked and other database activity takes an age, and with it, its much
> happier?
Some people say that VACUUM nukes their performance, and some don't
find it to be a probl
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:05:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Guy Thornley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Below is a patch for the lazy vacuum. It implements a simple I/O throttle so
> > boxen arnt killed for hours a day when VACUUM runs.
>
> Wasn't this idea tried and rejected already? You haven'
Tom Lane wrote:
> Guy Thornley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Below is a patch for the lazy vacuum. It implements a simple I/O throttle so
> > boxen arnt killed for hours a day when VACUUM runs.
>
> Wasn't this idea tried and rejected already? You haven't given us any
> information about actual
Guy Thornley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Below is a patch for the lazy vacuum. It implements a simple I/O throttle so
> boxen arnt killed for hours a day when VACUUM runs.
Wasn't this idea tried and rejected already? You haven't given us any
information about actual performance.
> The usleep()
Below is a patch for the lazy vacuum. It implements a simple I/O throttle so
boxen arnt killed for hours a day when VACUUM runs. Patch includes a
paragraph for the manual. The new setting is VACUUM_THROTTLE. It can be SET
from a client connection, too.
The usleep() could be replaced with a select(
