Re: Question about VACUUM

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ernesto Quiñones <ernestoq(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about VACUUM
Date: 2011-12-05 17:44:07
Message-ID: CAOR=d=24U__8V=rB+khFM18by863EwREgFhDfqxy_YkiJiGTyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ernesto Quiñones <ernestoq(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> vacuum_cost_delay       1s
>> vacuum_cost_limit       200
>
> Those are insane settings for vacuum costing, even on a very slow
> machine.  Basically you're starving vacuum and autovacuum so much that
> they can never keep up.

sorry, the word I meant there was pathological. No insult intended.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ernesto Quiñones 2011-12-05 17:46:48 Re: Question about VACUUM
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2011-12-05 17:42:56 Re: Question about VACUUM