Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW I've got serious reservations about whether this bit is safe:
>>
>>> + /* The table could've grown since vacuum started, and
>>> there
>>> +* might already be dead tuples on the new pages
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
Patched:
autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
Unpatched:
autovac "public.stock"
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
>
> > Patched:
>
> > autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
> > tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
>
> > Unpatched:
>
>
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
> Patched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
> tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
> Unpatched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 page
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Have you gotten performance numbers on this yet?
I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
Patched:
autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
Unpatched:
autovac "public.sto
