| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashkil Dighin <ashkildighin76(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lock contention high |
| Date: | 2021-10-14 02:11:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmuTpFGmFwyuBC09LmOavYcx9jqbOQOoB6ivS75m=aO_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 6:54 PM Jeremy Schneider
<schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com> wrote:
> only a half GB memory for autovac? (it will have a mandatory run as soon
> as you hit 200 mil XIDs, seems like you'd want the full max 1GB for it)
While anti-wraparound vacuums will become a problem for TPC-C (unless
you tune for it), it's not too sensitive to mwm. You just don't end up
accumulating too many TIDs to delete from indexes in practice, even
though the overhead from VACUUM is a concern. The new autovacuum
instrumentation in Postgres 14 makes this far clearer.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashkil Dighin | 2021-10-14 06:03:58 | Re: Lock contention high |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2021-10-14 01:54:22 | Re: Lock contention high |