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

Re: 12 hour table vacuums

From: Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: 2007-10-23 17:00:05
Message-ID: 471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ron St-Pierre wrote:
>
>   
>> Okay, here's our system:
>>   postgres 8.1.4
>>     
>
> Upgrade to 8.1.10
>   
Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this?
>   
>> 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?
>
>   
Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for 
company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our assumptions 
about that? I would like to know definitively what are the most popular 
columns. Do you think that rules would be a good approach for this? 
(Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here)
>> 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)
>
>   
Yes, Tom pointed this out too. I'll lower it and check out the results.

Ron


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-10-23 17:41:13
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Previous:From: Ron St-PierreDate: 2007-10-23 16:52:52
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums

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