pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jan.l.peterson@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com>
Subject: Re: poor VACUUM performance on large tables
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:07:27 -0400
Message-ID: <22356.1126055247@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72e966b005090617543ad88811@mail.gmail.com>
References: <72e966b00509032316166ff0cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<9274.1125874870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<72e966b005090617543ad88811@mail.gmail.com>

Jan Peterson <jan.l.peterson@gmail.com> writes:
> Based on this, it looks like we could stand to bump up our FSM another
> couple hundred thousand.  Does it buy us anything to reduce the number
> of FSM relations from the default of 1000?

Not a lot; as the comment says, those slots are only about 50 bytes
each.  (I think the true figure is closer to 70, according to some
measurements I did recently on CVS tip, but in any case it's less than
100 bytes apiece.)  Still, a byte saved is a byte earned ...

> It looks like we are using the defaults for work_mem (1024) and
> maintenance_work_mem (16384).  We could certainly bump these up.  Is
> there a good way to determine what settings would be reasonable?

I'd bump up maintenance_work_mem by a factor of 10 and see if it makes a
difference.  It should reduce the number of passes over the indexes when
vacuuming up lots of deleted rows.  If you have lots of RAM you might be
able to increase it more, but try that for starters.

			regards, tom lane



view thread (5+ messages)

Message-ID: <22356.1126055247@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../22356.1126055247@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/22356.1126055247@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply

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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jan.l.peterson@gmail.com, tfo@sitening.com
  Subject: Re: poor VACUUM performance on large tables
  In-Reply-To: <22356.1126055247@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