| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ray Stell <stellr(at)cns(dot)vt(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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: | 2007-01-26 21:07:45 |
| Message-ID: | B0FCD438-0712-4DEB-8D95-A922391DA9AF@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Ray Stell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> How do you measure the impact of setting it to 12 as opposed to 15?
If you've got a tool that will report disk utilization as a
percentage it's very easy; I'll decrease the setting until I'm at
about 90% utilization with the system's normal workload (leaving some
room for spikes, etc). Sometimes I'll also tune the costs if reads
vs. writes are a concern.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-26 21:10:20 | Re: VC2005 build and pthreads |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-01-26 21:01:23 | Re: Recursive query syntax ambiguity |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Carlos Moreno | 2007-01-27 02:18:42 | Seqscan/Indexscan still a known issue? |
| Previous Message | Anton Rommerskirchen | 2007-01-26 15:17:20 | Re: Tuning |