Philip Warner kirjutas P, 03.11.2002 kell 15:41: > At 03:25 PM 3/11/2002 +0500, Hannu Krosing wrote: > >a separate backend in a loop that > >kept doing VACUUM TABLE with only 5 seconds sleep between > > Good grief! I thought 5 minutes was bad enough. Can't wait for b/g vacuum. > Thanks for the input; I'll wait for a day or so to get some figures as you > suggest.
The 5 sec number was for case when tens of worker threads were updating as fast as they could a table with just a few of hundreds of rows. I guess your case is not _that_ intensive, so you can probably use much bigger intervals. ------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
