Message-ID: <454F3D23.6040003@alteeve.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:48:19 -0500
From: Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Brox <tobias@nordicbet.com>
CC: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Setting "nice" values
References: <20061102160057.GA26580@oppetid.no> <454F3434.4030205@alteeve.com>
	<20061106133353.GA22050@oppetid.no>
In-Reply-To: <20061106133353.GA22050@oppetid.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tobias Brox wrote:
> [Madison Kelly - Mon at 08:10:12AM -0500]
>> to run, which puts it into your "drawback" section. The server in 
>> question is also almost under load of some sort, too.
>>
>> A great tip and one I am sure to make use of later, thanks!
> 
> I must have been sleepy, listing up "cons" vs "drawbacks" ;-)

:) I noticed but figured what you meant (I certainly do similar flubs!).

> Anyway, the central question is not the size of the job, but the size of
> the transactions within the job - if the job consists of many
> transactions, "my" test can be run before every transaction.  Having
> transactions lasting for hours is a very bad thing to do, anyway.

Ah, sorry, long single queries is what you meant. I have inherited this 
code so I am not sure how long a given query takes, though they do use a 
lot of joins and such, so I suspect it isn't quick; indexes aside. When 
I get some time (and get the backup server running) I plan to play with 
this. Currently the DB is on a production server so I am hesitant to 
poke around just now. Once I get the backup server though, I will play 
with your suggestions. I am quite curious to see how it will work out.

Thanks again!

Madi