On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ofer Israeli <oferi(at)checkpoint(dot)com> wrote:
> The settings we used were not in the postgresql.conf file, but rather an update of the pg_autovacuum table where we set the vac_cost_limit to 2000. The reason for this being that we wanted this definition only for the big (TOASTed) table I was referring to.
> The logged settings in the ~400 second case were:
> autovac_balance_cost(pid=6224 db=16385, rel=17881, cost_limit=10, cost_delay=1)
> Which comes as quite a surprise as it seems that the cost_limit is not set or am I missing something?
That doesn't look right, but without step-by-step directions it will
be hard for anyone to reproduce this. Also, what version are you
testing on? pg_autovacuum was removed in PostgreSQL 8.4, so you must
be using PostgreSQL 8.3 or earlier.
You might at least want to make sure you're running a late enough
minor version to have this fix:
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Branch: master Release: REL9_1_BR [b58c25055] 2010-11-19 22:29:44 -0500
Branch: REL9_0_STABLE Release: REL9_0_2 [b5efc0940] 2010-11-19 22:28:25 -0500
Branch: REL8_4_STABLE Release: REL8_4_6 [fab2af30d] 2010-11-19 22:28:30 -0500
Branch: REL8_3_STABLE Release: REL8_3_13 [6cb9d5113] 2010-11-19 22:28:35 -0500
Fix leakage of cost_limit when multiple autovacuum workers are active.
When using default autovacuum_vac_cost_limit, autovac_balance_cost relied
on VacuumCostLimit to contain the correct global value ... but after the
first time through in a particular worker process, it didn't, because we'd
trashed it in previous iterations. Depending on the state of other autovac
workers, this could result in a steady reduction of the effective
cost_limit setting as a particular worker processed more and more tables,
causing it to go slower and slower. Spotted by Simon Poole (bug #5759).
Fix by saving and restoring the GUC variables in the loop in do_autovacuum.
In passing, improve a few comments.
Back-patch to 8.3 ... the cost rebalancing code has been buggy since it was
> And one more thing that seems a bit strange - after a 1-minute run, we would
> expect to see 1700 Tuples Updated (100*17), but instead we see 1700 Tuples
> Inserted (and no deletes).
I don't think TOAST ever updates chunks in place. It just inserts and
deletes; or at least I think that's what it does.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Igor Schtein||Date: 2012-02-29 20:37:56|
|Subject: Performance of SQL Function versus View|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-02-29 18:35:37|
|Subject: Re: How to improve insert speed with index on text column|