On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:24:06AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Mark Woodward wrote: > > > In case of the number of actively modified rows being in only tens or > > > low hundreds of thousands of rows, (i.e. the modified set fits in > > > memory) the continuous vacuum process shows up as just another backend, > > > not really taking order of magnitude more resources. It mainly generates > > > WAL traffic, as modified pages are already in memory/cache and are > > > mostly synced by background writer and/or checkpoint. > > > Of course you have to adjust vacuum_cost_* variables so as to not > > > saturate IO. > > These sort of solutions, IMHO, don't show how good PostgreSQL is, but show > > where it is very lacking. > We all know Postgres is lacking; some of us try to improve it (some with > more success than others). People who know the current limitations but > like the capabilities, try to find workarounds to the problems. What > surprises me is that, if you have such a low opinion of Postgres, you > still use it.
If everybody had good opinions, where would the development come from? It's the parts that suck that need fixing the most... :-) Cheers, mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster