| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Baptiste LHOSTE" <blhoste(at)alaloop(dot)com>,pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Autoanalyze of the autovacuum daemon ... |
| Date: | 2012-11-09 15:59:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20121109155957.77890@gmx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Baptiste LHOSTE wrote:
>> Please show us the output from running this query:
>>
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Server_Configuration
> [very reasonable settings except for a very large work_mem]
Make sure that work_mem setting isn't driving you into swapping or
near-zero caching. A shortage of cache space could explain this
because it looks like about 8.5 ms for each page read. About the only
other thing I can think to recommend is to decrease
autovacuum_cost_delay to 10ms and see if that helps.
> These tables have two timestamp columns and a btree index on both
> timestamp column. Will it be more efficient for us to configure the
> autovacuum daemon analyze task only on those columns ?
No.
> 4 * 300 Go Raid 0
You do realize that if any of those four drives fail you will need to
use your backup, right?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Baptiste LHOSTE | 2012-11-09 16:37:01 | Re: Autoanalyze of the autovacuum daemon ... |
| Previous Message | Baptiste LHOSTE | 2012-11-09 15:35:23 | Re: Autoanalyze of the autovacuum daemon ... |