On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Steven Flatt wrote:
> On 7/28/07, Jim C. Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote: What are your
> vacuum_cost_* settings? If you set those too aggressively
> you'll be in big trouble.
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 100
Wow, that's *really* high. I don't think I've ever set it higher than
25. I'd cut it way back.
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 200
> These are generally fine, autovacuum keeps up, and there is minimal
> impact on the system.
> vacuum_cost_delay = 100
> vacuum_cost_limit = 1000
> We set this cost_limit a little higher so that, in the few cases
> where we have to intervene manually, vacuum runs faster.
IIRC, when the cost delay was initially introduced (8.0), someone did
testing and decided that the cost limit of 200 was optimal, so I
wouldn't go changing it like that without good reason.
Normally, I'll use a delay of 10ms on good disk hardware, and 20ms on
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-07-31 05:19:16|
|Subject: Re: disk filling up |
|Previous:||From: Karl Denninger||Date: 2007-07-31 01:08:44|
|Subject: Query optimization....|