| From: | Steve Kehlet <steve(dot)kehlet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: how to investigate GIN fast updates and cleanup cycles? |
| Date: | 2015-08-28 20:45:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bfosHR=D2+SyNF-gxHz-WjieUd9T_kBqQ+TvgE+_13NLqZZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:23 PM Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> You should RESET the autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor for the table. You
> don't want it to be vacuumed aggressively, just autoanalyzed aggressively.
> Sorry if my copy-paste error led you astray on that.
>
No problem, done, thank you.
There is a bulk load going on right now so a lot of tables are needing
>> vacuuming. I really need to increase my autovacuum_max_workers.
>>
>
> But those workers all share the same IO throttling amongst themselves.
> Increasing it mostly just gives you more workers all working more slowly.
>
Ah, you're right, that won't help.
> Assuming your IO subsystem can handle it, you are better off lowering
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay, which can be done without a server restart
> (although the change won't take full effect until the existing workers go
> away and restart). I also set vacuum_cost_page_hit and
> vacuum_cost_page_miss to zero and rely exclusively on vacuum_cost_page_dirty
> to do the throttling.
>
Thank you for these great suggestions, I will play with them.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | kingl | 2015-08-28 20:59:08 | Re: wal files stay in the pg_xlog dir |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-08-28 20:25:56 | Re: wal files stay in the pg_xlog dir |