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

Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Date: 2005-02-23 01:03:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>>I'm using ony pg_autovacuum. I expect that disk usage will reach
>>a steady state but is not. PG engine: 7.4.5
> One data point doesn't prove that you're not at a steady state.

I do a graph about my disk usage and it's a ramp since one week,
I'll continue to wait in order to see if it will decrease.
I was expecting the steady state at something like 4 GB
( after a full vacuum and reindex ) + 10 % = 4.4 GB
I'm at 4.6 GB and increasing. I'll see how it will continue.

>># vacuum full verbose messages;
>>INFO:  vacuuming "public.messages"
>>INFO:  "messages": found 77447 removable, 1606437 nonremovable row versions in 69504 pages
>>INFO:  "messages": moved 55221 row versions, truncated 69504 to 63307 pages
> 10% overhead sounds fairly reasonable to me.  How does that compare to
> the amount of updating you do on the table --- ie, do you turn over 10%
> of the table in a day?

Less, that table have 1.6 milion rows, and I insert 2000 rows in a day
with almost ~ 40000 update in one day. So it's something like: 2.5 %

Gaetano Mendola

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2005-02-23 01:05:03
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-22 23:08:21
Subject: Re: VACUUM ANALYZE slows down query

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group