Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Date: 2005-02-22 21:28:03
Message-ID: 12400.1109107683@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> I'm using ony pg_autovacuum. I expect that disk usage will reach
> a steady state but is not. PG engine: 7.4.5

One data point doesn't prove that you're not at a steady state.

> # vacuum full verbose messages;
> INFO: vacuuming "public.messages"
> INFO: "messages": found 77447 removable, 1606437 nonremovable row versions in 69504 pages
> ...
> INFO: "messages": moved 55221 row versions, truncated 69504 to 63307 pages

10% overhead sounds fairly reasonable to me. How does that compare to
the amount of updating you do on the table --- ie, do you turn over 10%
of the table in a day?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Chambers 2005-02-22 22:08:05 Inefficient Query Plans
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-02-22 20:58:01 Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?