| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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/
>
| 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 |