Re: XIDs and big boxes again ...

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
>>>             regards, tom lane
>>>   
>>
>>
>> overhead is not an issue here - if i lose 10 or 15% i am totally fine 
>> as long as i can reduce vacuum overhead to an absolute minimum.
>> overhead will vary with row sizes anyway - this is not the point.
>
> I am not buying this argument. If you have a 5TB database, I am going 
> to assume you put it on enterprise class hardware. Enterprise class 
> hardware can handle the I/O required to appropriately run vacuum.
>
> We have a customer that is constantly running 5 autovacuum workers on 
> only 28 spindles. We are in the process of upgrading them to 50 
> spindles at which point I will likely try 10 autovacuum workers.
>


i forgot to mention - i am on 8.1 here.
so, VACUUM is not so smart yet.

my changes are pretty much random I/O - so tuple header does not 
contribute to a lot more I/O as i have to read entire blocks anway.
this is why i said - it is not that kind of an issue.

and no, updating is not a 5 min task ...

    hans

-- 
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Sup****t
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql-sup****t.de, www.postgresql-sup****t.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers