On 2016-05-06 20:28:27 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-05-06 19:43:24 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> It's disappointing that I am not getting more consistent numbers,
> >> but NUMA can be hard to manage that way.
> > FWIW, in my experience, unless you disable autovacuum (or rather
> > auto-analyze), the effects from non-predicable analyze runs with
> > long-running snapshots are worse. I mean the numa effects suck, but in
> > r/w workload effects of analyze are often much worse.
> Hm. But the benefits of the patch are not there if autovacuum is
> off. I'm gonna need to ponder the best way to test given all that.
It's sufficient to set the threshhold for analyze very high, as vacuum
itself doesn't have that problem. I basically just set
autovacuum_analyze_threshold to INT_MAX , that alleviates the problem
for normal runs.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: