From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Chris Mckenzie <Chris.McKenzie@entrust.com>
Cc: 'pgsql-performance@postgresql.org' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Postgres 7.4 and vacuum_cost_delay.
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:54:38 -0500
Message-ID: <20060502225438.GL97354@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DE02FD24E5A7504FA1D53631DA8CEA9BF8B62E@sottmxs10.entrust.com>
References: <DE02FD24E5A7504FA1D53631DA8CEA9BF8B62E@sottmxs10.entrust.com>
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:47:15PM -0400, Chris Mckenzie wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> My first check was of course a grep/search of the postgres.conf, next it was
> a complete source grep for vacuum_cost_delay.
It's there in head...
decibel@phonebook.1[17:52]~/pgsql/HEAD/src:4%grep -ri vacuum_cost_delay *|wc -l
8
> I've come to the conclusion I need to simply start tracking all transactions
> and determining a cost/performance for the larger and frequently updated
> tables without the benefit and penalty of pg_statio.
Huh? pg_statio shouldn't present a large penalty AFAIK...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jnasby@pervasive.com, Chris.McKenzie@entrust.com
Subject: Re: Postgres 7.4 and vacuum_cost_delay.
In-Reply-To: <20060502225438.GL97354@pervasive.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox