From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Joost Kraaijeveld <J(dot)Kraaijeveld(at)Askesis(dot)nl> |
Cc: | postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum takes forever |
Date: | 2007-06-11 02:51:08 |
Message-ID: | 61D402B6-427B-4851-85F5-7E491CB84AF8@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On May 29, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
> vacuum_cost_page_hit = 6
> #vacuum_cost_page_miss = 10 # 0-10000 credits
> #vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 20 # 0-10000 credits
> vacuum_cost_limit = 100
I didn't see anyone else mention this, so...
Those settings are *very* aggressive. I'm not sure why you upped the
cost of page_hit or dropped the cost_limit, but I can tell you the
effect: vacuum will sleep at least every 17 pages... even if those
pages were already in shared_buffers and vacuum didn't have to dirty
them. I really can't think of any reason you'd want to do that.
I do find vacuum_cost_delay to be an extremely useful tool, but
typically I'll set it to between 10 and 20 and leave the other
parameters alone.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-06-11 03:08:32 | Re: dbt2 NOTPM numbers |
Previous Message | Andreas Kostyrka | 2007-06-08 21:43:34 | Re: [OT] Re: How much ram is too much |