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

Re: Vacuum takes forever

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Joost Kraaijeveld <J(dot)Kraaijeveld(at)Askesis(dot)nl>
Cc: postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum takes forever
Date: 2007-06-11 02:51:08
Message-ID: 61D402B6-427B-4851-85F5-7E491CB84AF8@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On May 29, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
> vacuum_cost_page_hit = 6
> #vacuum_cost_page_miss = 10             # 0-10000 credits
> #vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 20            # 0-10000 credits
> vacuum_cost_limit = 100

I didn't see anyone else mention this, so...

Those settings are *very* aggressive. I'm not sure why you upped the  
cost of page_hit or dropped the cost_limit, but I can tell you the  
effect: vacuum will sleep at least every 17 pages... even if those  
pages were already in shared_buffers and vacuum didn't have to dirty  
them. I really can't think of any reason you'd want to do that.

I do find vacuum_cost_delay to be an extremely useful tool, but  
typically I'll set it to between 10 and 20 and leave the other  
parameters alone.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2007-06-11 03:08:32
Subject: Re: dbt2 NOTPM numbers
Previous:From: Andreas KostyrkaDate: 2007-06-08 21:43:34
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: How much ram is too much

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