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

Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table
Date: 2005-08-30 22:05:38
Message-ID: 6064tn6pxp.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
thing(at)m-bass(dot)com (Markus Benne) writes:
> We have a highly active table that has virtually all
> entries updated every 5 minutes.  Typical size of the
> table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat.
>
> We are currently vaccuming hourly, and towards the end
> of the hour we are seeing degradation, when compared
> to the top of the hour.

You're not vacuuming the table nearly often enough.

You should vacuum this table every five minutes, and possibly more
often than that.

[We have some tables like that, albeit smaller than 50K entries, which
we vacuum once per minute in production...]

> We are thinking of splitting the table in two: the part the updates
> often, and the part the updates infrequently as we suspect that
> record size impacts vacuum.

There's *some* merit to that.

You might discover that there's a "hot spot" that needs to be vacuumed
once per minute.

But it may be simpler to just hit the table with a vacuum once every
few minutes even though some tuples are seldom updated.
-- 
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Signs  of  a  Klingon  Programmer #3:  "By   filing this  TPR you have
challenged the honor of my family. Prepare to die!"

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ralph MasonDate: 2005-08-30 22:21:20
Subject: 'Real' auto vacuum?
Previous:From: markDate: 2005-08-30 22:05:03
Subject: Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table

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