| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Ernesto Quiñones <ernestoq(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about VACUUM |
| Date: | 2011-12-05 20:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=0_sCcr73L-8GqOGD9YTKaYEUmqd+dLZR-Ad351QmbHLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Ernesto Quiñones<ernestoq(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> vacuum_cost_limit 200
> We've boosted this to 600. Once you're in a "steady state", this is
> the setting you might want to adjust up or down as needed to make
> cleanup aggressive enough without putting a noticeable dent in
> performance while it is running.
On the busy production systems I've worked on in the past, we had this
cranked up to several thousand along with 10 or so workers to keep up
on a busy machine. The more IO your box has, the more you can afford
to make vacuum / autovacuum aggressive.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tory M Blue | 2011-12-05 23:25:23 | Re: pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-12-05 19:08:51 | Re: pg_upgrade |