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

Re: Question about VACUUM

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question about VACUUM
Date: 2011-12-07 15:14:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/5/11 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I understand the impulse to run autovacuum less frequently or
>> less aggressively.  When we first started running PostgreSQL the
>> default configuration was very cautious.
> The default settings are deliberately cautious, as default
> settings should be.
I was talking historically, about the defaults in 8.1:
Those defaults were *over*-cautious to the point that we experienced
serious problems.  My point was that many people's first instinct in
that case is to make the setting less aggressive, as I initially did
and the OP has done.  The problem is actually solved by making them
*more* aggressive.  Current defaults are pretty close to what we
found, through experimentation, worked well for us for most
> But yes, anyone with a really large/high-traffic database will
> often want to make autovac more aggressive.
I think we're in agreement: current defaults are good for a typical
environment; high-end setups still need to tune to more aggressive
settings.  This is an area where incremental changes with monitoring
works well.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Christiaan WillemsenDate: 2011-12-07 15:15:52
Subject: Partitions and joins lead to index lookups on all partitions
Previous:From: Marti RaudseppDate: 2011-12-07 14:56:53
Subject: Re: Intersect/Union X AND/OR

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