Re: [PERFORM] a heavy duty operation on an unused table kills my server

2010-01-16 Thread Greg Smith
Tom Lane wrote: This is in fact exactly what the vacuum_cost_delay logic does. It might be interesting to investigate generalizing that logic so that it could throttle all of a backend's I/O not just vacuum. In principle I think it ought to work all right for any I/O-bound query. So much

Re: [PERFORM] a heavy duty operation on an unused table kills my server

2010-01-16 Thread Greg Smith
Robert Haas wrote: Seems like you'd also need to think about priority inversion, if the low-priority backend is holding any locks. Right, that's what I was alluding to in the last part: the non-obvious piece here is not how to decide when the backend should nap because it's done too much

Re: [PERFORM] Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used?

2010-01-16 Thread Pierre Frédéric Caillau d
I've changed the setting a bit: (1) Replaced 7.200 disk by a 10.000 one, still sata though. (2) Inserting rows only 10x times (instead of 100x times) but 80mb each, so having the same amount of 800mb in total. (3) Changed the WAL path to the system disk (by the great 'junction' trick