From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum wait time problem
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:02:43 -0500
Message-ID: <23106.1234576963@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10902131708x2e8dfdadofc6355d8c27c6430@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4995ABC0.4090401@musicreports.com>
<200902140102.09224@zmi.at>
<dcc563d10902131708x2e8dfdadofc6355d8c27c6430@mail.gmail.com>
Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie
> <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at> wrote:
>> vacuum_cost_delay = 0
>> That was the trick for me. It was set to 250(ms), where it took 5 hours
>> for a vacuum to run. Now it takes 5-15 minutes.
> Wow!!! 250 ms is HUGE in the scheme of vacuum cost delay. even 10ms
> is usually plenty to slow down vacuum enough to keep it out of your
> way and double to quadruple your vacuum times.
I wonder whether we ought to tighten the allowed range of
vacuum_cost_delay. The upper limit is 1000ms at the moment;
but that's clearly much higher than is useful, and it seems
to encourage people to pick silly values ...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at
Subject: Re: Vacuum wait time problem
In-Reply-To: <23106.1234576963@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox