From: | Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 12 hour table vacuums |
Date: | 2007-10-23 17:00:05 |
Message-ID: | 471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ron St-Pierre wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, here's our system:
>> postgres 8.1.4
>>
>
> Upgrade to 8.1.10
>
Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this?
>
>> 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?
>
>
Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for
company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our assumptions
about that? I would like to know definitively what are the most popular
columns. Do you think that rules would be a good approach for this?
(Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here)
>> 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)
>
>
Yes, Tom pointed this out too. I'll lower it and check out the results.
Ron
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-23 17:41:13 | Re: 12 hour table vacuums |
Previous Message | Ron St-Pierre | 2007-10-23 16:52:52 | Re: 12 hour table vacuums |