From: | Ellen Cyran <ellen(at)urban(dot)csuohio(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: After how many updates should a vacuum be performed? |
Date: | 2006-09-14 13:17:30 |
Message-ID: | 4509566A.20303@urban.csuohio.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
The FSM seems to be large enough. The verbose indicated
39 relations, 5090 pages, and 3952 total pages needed.
Allocated FSM size is 1000 relations & 20000 pages = 186KB shared memory.
Also, the vacuum of all the database only took 1 hour and 20 minutes so
is there anything I should look at the next time this happens besides i/o?
Thanks.
Ellen
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ellen Cyran <ellen(at)urban(dot)csuohio(dot)edu> writes:
>
>>>Hm, that should be OK. What do you have maintenance_work_mem set to?
>
>
>>It's set at the default 16384.
>
>
> That should be plenty for getting rid of a million or so tuples. I'm
> wondering if you are seeing some weird locking effect. Is the VACUUM
> constantly busy with I/O or does it sit and wait at points? Do you have
> other queries actively accessing the table during the VACUUM?
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 14:11:43 | Re: After how many updates should a vacuum be performed? |
Previous Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2006-09-14 13:16:47 | Re: Time triggered events |