From: Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
To: Steven Flatt <steven.flatt@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:36:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20070728163624.GI39272@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 05:32:11PM -0400, Steven Flatt wrote:
> weren't convinced was doing anything), then start a manual vacuum with a
> higher vacuum_cost_limit to get things cleaned up quicker.
What are your vacuum_cost_* settings? If you set those too aggressively
you'll be in big trouble.
The second pass on the vacuum means that maintenance_work_memory isn't
large enough.
--
Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: decibel@decibel.org, steven.flatt@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
In-Reply-To: <20070728163624.GI39272@nasby.net>
* 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