--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah-hah. The win32 hackers should confirm this, but
my recollection is
that sync/fsync are no-ops under Cygwin (one of the
several reasons
we would never recommend that port for production
use). So this would
fit the assumption that the 7.4 code was
Shelby Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds reasonable. However, I don't see the same
performance hit while doing bulk database operations
(ie: inserts, deletes, updates). Is that expected
behavior? Do vacuum operations fsync()/_commit() more
often?
IIRC, vacuum fsyncs once per table
Shelby Cain wrote:
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah-hah. The win32 hackers should confirm this, but
my recollection is
that sync/fsync are no-ops under Cygwin (one of the
several reasons
we would never recommend that port for production
use). So this would
fit the assumption that the 7.4
I'm putting 8.0 through its paces and here are a few
things I've noticed on the native win32 port running
on my workstation (2.0g p4 w/256 megs of ram).
Here is the output of vacuum verbose item:
INFO: vacuuming public.item
INFO: item: removed 246381 row versions in 24044
Shelby Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm putting 8.0 through its paces and here are a few
things I've noticed on the native win32 port running
on my workstation (2.0g p4 w/256 megs of ram).
Here is the output of vacuum verbose item:
DETAIL: CPU -1.-1612s/-1.99u sec elapsed 1434.79 sec.
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My other concern is the length of time that vacuum
runs when cost based vacuuming is disabled.
Are you sure you had cost-based vac disabled? I
tried to reproduce
your experiment here. I saw some degradation in
vacuuming speed
but not nearly as
Shelby Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From looking at vacuum.c I gathered vacuum_cost_delay
must be 0 to enable the feature - correct?
Yeah, that's right --- delay=0 turns it off. Weird. Can anyone else
reproduce the problem?
regards, tom lane
Shelby Cain wrote:
I'm putting 8.0 through its paces and here are a few
things I've noticed on the native win32 port running
on my workstation (2.0g p4 w/256 megs of ram).
Here is the output of vacuum verbose item:
INFO: vacuuming public.item
INFO: item: removed 246381 row
