From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Default autovacuum settings too conservative |
Date: | 2006-02-01 21:16:33 |
Message-ID: | 20060201211633.GM95850@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
As I recall, the idea behind vacuum_threshold was to prevent
too-frequent vacuuming of small tables. I'm beginning to question this
reasoning:
Small tables vacuum very, very quickly, so 'extra' vacuuming is very
unlikely to hurt system performance.
Small tables are most likely to have either very few updates (ie: a
'lookup table') or very frequent updates (ie: a table implementing a
queue). In the former, even with vacuum_threshold = 0 vacuum will be a
very rare occurance. In the later case, a high threshold is likely to
cause a large amount of un-nececcasry bloat.
Also, vacuum_scale_factor of 0.4 seems unreasonably large. It means
tables will be 40% dead space, which seems excessively wasteful.
Something between 0.1 and 0.2 seems much better.
Has anyone looked at how effective these two settings are?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-02-01 21:21:16 | Re: autovacuum |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2006-02-01 20:50:25 | Re: autovacuum |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-02-01 21:23:03 | Re: Index Usage using IN |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-01 20:53:08 | Re: Planner reluctant to start from subquery |