Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 12 hour table vacuums

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: 2007-10-23 16:12:04
Message-ID: 20071023161204.GK18013@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Ron St-Pierre wrote:

> Okay, here's our system:
>   postgres 8.1.4

Upgrade to 8.1.10

> Here's the table information:
> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60 indexes.

60 indexes?  You gotta be kidding.  You really have 60 columns on which
to scan?

> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
> vacuum_cost_limit = 100

Isn't this a bit high?  What happens if you cut the delay to, say, 10?
(considering you've lowered the limit to half the default)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                          Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"Someone said that it is at least an order of magnitude more work to do
production software than a prototype. I think he is wrong by at least
an order of magnitude."                              (Brian Kernighan)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2007-10-23 16:21:16
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-23 16:11:51
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group