From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
Date: | 2019-02-25 13:38:59 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_5xofbg0K16MkhQPeCXV6oGCuD2SVcV76OW7ydFDHDkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 02:06, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Agreed that the scale factors are not perfect, but I don't think
changing them is as quite a no-brainer as the vacuum_cost_limit, so
the attached patch just does the vacuum_cost_limit.
I decided to do the times by 10 option that I had mentioned.... Ensue
debate about that...
I'll add this to the March commitfest and set the target version as PG12.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Increase-the-default-vacuum_cost_limit-from-200-t.patch | text/x-patch | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-02-25 13:42:02 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-02-25 13:18:30 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |