From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: 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: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:02:05 -0500
Message-ID: <26754.1234731725@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49980F79.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
References: <4995ABC0.4090401@musicreports.com>
<200902140102.09224@zmi.at>
<dcc563d10902131708x2e8dfdadofc6355d8c27c6430@mail.gmail.com>
<23106.1234576963@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<dcc563d10902131824n72051a44he60bc8d1d7467e5e@mail.gmail.com>
<49980F79.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> I don't know what other people have found useful, but when I
> experimented with this in our environment, it seemed like I should
> just treat vacuum_cost_delay as a boolean, where 0 meant off and 10
> meant on, and tune it by adjusting vacuum_cost_limit. The granularity
> of vacuum_cost_delay is course and surprising unpredictable.
Making it a boolean is a bit further than I care to go ;-)
What I'd suggest at this point is changing the upper limit to 100ms
(from 1000) and adding documentation suggesting that the value should
be kept small, preferring to use the other vacuum_cost parameters to
tune the behavior.
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, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at
Subject: Re: Vacuum wait time problem
In-Reply-To: <26754.1234731725@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