Re: Vaccum Stalling

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Brad Nicholson" <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vaccum Stalling
Date: 2007-07-10 16:16:39
Message-ID: 162867790707100916t811d81fk2d73f600143e480f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hello

I have similar problem with vacuum on 8.1

I have 256M table. pgstattuple reports 128M free. I stopped vacuum
after 1hour (maintenance_work_mem = 160M). I had not more time.

Regards
Pavel Stehule

2007/7/10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> writes:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to
> >> a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more
> >> btbulkdelete scans than you need to.
>
> > What would you define as high for 7.4? I bumped it up to ~ 245mbs
>
> That sounds like plenty --- you only need 6 bytes per dead tuple,
> so that should be enough to handle all your 15-20M dead tuples in
> one scan.
>
> How big is this index again?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2007-07-10 16:32:23 Re: PostGreSQL Replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-07-10 16:12:24 Re: Vaccum Stalling