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

Re: [HACKERS] how to plan for vacuum?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] how to plan for vacuum?
Date: 2007-01-25 16:04:49
Message-ID: 45B8D521.8010405@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 
>> I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
>> utilization.
> 
> I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
> this sound reasonable?

It really depends on the system. Most of our systems run anywhere from
10-25ms. I find that any more than that, Vacuum takes too long.

Joshua D. Drake



-- 

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-01-25 16:22:47
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] how to plan for vacuum?
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-01-25 15:54:24
Subject: Re: how to plan for vacuum?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2007-01-25 16:06:16
Subject: Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-25 16:03:13
Subject: Re: WAL Record Header Size Reduction

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