Quoting Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> >>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TL> Jack Orenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I'm looking at one case in which two successive transactions, each
> >> updating a handful of records, take 26 and 18 *seconds* (not msec) to
> >> complete. These transactions normally complete in under 30 msec.
> TL> I've seen installations in which it seemed that the "normal" query load
> TL> was close to saturating the available disk bandwidth, and the extra load
> TL> imposed by a background VACUUM just pushed the entire system's response
> TL> time over a cliff.  In an installation that has I/O capacity to spare,
> ...
> TL> I suspect that the same observations hold true for checkpoints, though
> TL> I haven't specifically seen an installation suffering from that effect.
> I don't see that.  But I also set checkpoint segments to about 50 on
> my big server.

But wouldn't that affect checkpoint frequency, not checkpoint cost?

Jack Orenstein

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to