Re: High load,

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Kohl <michael(dot)kohl(at)tupalo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: High load,
Date: 2011-01-27 13:26:38
Message-ID: 201101271426.38876.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thursday, January 27, 2011 02:23:48 PM Cédric Villemain wrote:
> 2011/1/27 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:24:10 PM Cédric Villemain wrote:
> >> > maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
> >>
> >> 128MB is usualy enough
> >
> > Uhm, I don't want to be picky, but thats not really my experience. Sorts
> > for index creation are highly dependent on a high m_w_m. Quite regularly
> > I find the existing 1GB limit a probleme here...
>
> That is right for index creation, but not for 'pure' maintenance
> stuff. Once the database is running as usual, there is no really point
> to give auto-vacuum or auto-analyze much more (depend on the raid card
> memory too ...)
Even that I cannot agree with, sorry ;-). If you have a database with much
churn a high m_w_m helps to avoid multiple scans during vacuum of the database
because the amount of dead tuples doesn't fit m_w_m.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Greco 2011-01-27 13:48:00 Re: Real vs Int performance
Previous Message Cédric Villemain 2011-01-27 13:23:48 Re: High load,