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

Re: 12 hour table vacuums

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: 2007-10-23 16:12:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Ron St-Pierre wrote:

> Okay, here's our system:
>   postgres 8.1.4

Upgrade to 8.1.10

> 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?

> 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)

Alvaro Herrera                          Developer,
"Someone said that it is at least an order of magnitude more work to do
production software than a prototype. I think he is wrong by at least
an order of magnitude."                              (Brian Kernighan)

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2007-10-23 16:21:16
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-23 16:11:51
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group