| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | autovacuum default parameters (was Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3) |
| Date: | 2007-07-24 04:14:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20070724041444.GA18230@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
> >> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >> >
> >> > I am taking the liberty to also lower the vacuum and analyze threshold
> >> > default values to 50, per previous discussion.
>
> Did we also reach any consensus about lowering the percentage of dead tuples
> in a table before we trigger vacuum? I think 20% is way too high and 5% is
> saner. I actually think it would be better even lower but would be ok with 5%.
We didn't, but while I agree with the idea, I think 5% is too low. I
don't want autovacuum to get excessively aggressive. Is 10% not enough?
How about the analyze scale factor, should we keep the current 10%? I
have less of a problem with reducing it further since analyze is cheaper
than vacuum.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-07-24 04:32:02 | Re: autovacuum default parameters (was Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3) |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2007-07-24 04:04:10 | avoiding WAL logging in 8.3 |