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

Re: [HACKERS] how to plan for vacuum?

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Ray Stell <stellr(at)cns(dot)vt(dot)edu>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] how to plan for vacuum?
Date: 2007-01-26 21:07:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Ray Stell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> It really depends on the system. Most of our systems run anywhere  
>> from
>> 10-25ms. I find that any more than that, Vacuum takes too long.
> How do you measure the impact of setting it to 12 as opposed to 15?

If you've got a tool that will report disk utilization as a  
percentage it's very easy; I'll decrease the setting until I'm at  
about 90% utilization with the system's normal workload (leaving some  
room for spikes, etc). Sometimes I'll also tune the costs if reads  
vs. writes are a concern.
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Carlos MorenoDate: 2007-01-27 02:18:42
Subject: Seqscan/Indexscan still a known issue?
Previous:From: Anton RommerskirchenDate: 2007-01-26 15:17:20
Subject: Re: Tuning

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-01-26 21:10:20
Subject: Re: VC2005 build and pthreads
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2007-01-26 21:01:23
Subject: Re: Recursive query syntax ambiguity

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