From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:10:08 -0400
Message-ID: <20070322171007.GH11402@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200703221655.03068.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
References: <200703221435.54408.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
<200703221605.38460.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
<20070322151243.GH4102@alvh.no-ip.org>
<200703221655.03068.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Dimitri wrote:
>In my case I have several CPU on the server and quite powerful storage box
>which is not really busy with a single vacuum. So, my idea is quite simple -
>speed-up vacuum with parallel execution (just an algorithm):
Vacuum is I/O intensive, not CPU intensive. Running more of them will
probably make things slower rather than faster, unless each thing you're
vacuuming has its own (separate) disks. The fact that your CPU isn't
pegged while vacuuming suggests that your disk is already your
bottleneck--and doing multiple sequential scans on the same disk will
definitely be slower than doing one.
Mike Stone
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: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20070322171007.GH11402@mathom.us>
* 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