Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1729FB319
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 19 May 2007 19:38:48 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 50506-07 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 19 May 2007 19:38:30 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EB39FB31D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 19 May 2007 19:38:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id A168E30909; Sun, 20 May 2007 00:38:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: Background vacuum
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:38:12 -0700
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <464F7C54.7090902@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
References: <4642A1B3.6030009@swissembedded.com>
	<4642A811.9010703@drivefaster.net>
	<4643B490.2040704@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<20070517135530.GI6907@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<464D04F8.7020306@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705172246320.20470@westnet.com>
	<464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<18134.1179458524@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<464DFCC3.8040207@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705190100570.29971@westnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705190100570.29971@westnet.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200705/373
X-Sequence-Number: 24763

Greg Smith wrote:
> 
> Let's break this down into individual parts:

Great summary.

> 4) Is vacuuming a challenging I/O demand?  Quite.
> 
> Add all this up, and that fact that you're satisfied with how nice has
> worked successfully for you doesn't have to conflict with an opinion
> that it's not the best approach for controlling vacuuming.  I just
> wouldn't extrapolate your experience too far here.

I wasn't claiming it's a the best approach for vacuuming.