On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:56:54PM -0400, Chris Hoover wrote:
> I don't have real numbers to give you, but we know that our systems
> are hurting i/o wise and we are growing by about 2GB+ per week (net).
> We actually grow by about 5GB/week/server. However, when I run my
> weekly maintenance of vacuum full, reindex, and the vacuum analyze, we
> end up getting about 3GB back. Unfortunately, I do not have the i/o
> bandwidth to vacuum during the day as it causes major slowdowns on our
> system. Each night, I do run a vacuum analyze across all db's to try
> and help. I also have my fsm parameters set high (8000000 fsm pages,
> and 5000 fsm relations) to try and compensate.
> Right now, we are still on 7.3.4. However, these ideas would be
> implemented as part of an upgrade to 8.x (plus, we'll initialize the
> new clusters with a C locale).
If you were on a newer version, I'd suggest that you use the cost-based
vacuum delay, and vacuum at least some of the tables more often. This
way you can reduce the continual growth of the data files without
affecting day-to-day performance, because you allow the VACUUM-inflicted
I/O to be interleaved by normal query execution.
Sadly (for you), I think the cost-based vacuum delay feature was only
introduced in 8.0.
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-08-24 20:00:45|
|Subject: Re: Some ideas for comment |
|Previous:||From: mark||Date: 2005-08-24 19:34:41|
|Subject: Re: Caching by Postgres|