| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Date: | 2019-02-25 13:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 241b80ab-7af0-c606-7b2c-b0a5d6be696a@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/25/19 1:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:42 PM David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> The current default vacuum_cost_limit of 200 seems to be 15 years old
>> and was added in f425b605f4e.
>>
>> Any supporters for raising the default?
>
> I also think that the current default limit is far too conservative.
I agree entirely. In my experience you are usually much better off if
vacuum finishes quickly. Personally I think our default scale factors
are horrible too, especially when there are tables with large numbers of
rows.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-02-25 13:14:16 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-02-25 12:47:41 | Re: INSERT ... OVERRIDING USER VALUE vs GENERATED ALWAYS identity columns |