From: Steven Flatt <steven.flatt@gmail.com>
To: Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:04:08 -0400
Message-ID: <357fa7590707300904u4c2eb219p87793b5d19730638@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070728163624.GI39272@nasby.net>
References: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
<20070728163624.GI39272@nasby.net>
On 7/28/07, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.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
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.
The second pass on the vacuum means that maintenance_work_memory isn't
> large enough.
maintenance_work_mem is set to 256MB and I don't think we want to make this
any bigger by default. Like I say above, generally autovacuum runs fine.
If we do run into this situation again (lots of OOM queries and lots to
cleanup), we'll probably increase maintenance_work_mem locally and run a
vacuum in that session.
Good to know that vacuum was doing the right thing.
Thanks,
Steve
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: steven.flatt@gmail.com, decibel@decibel.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
In-Reply-To: <357fa7590707300904u4c2eb219p87793b5d19730638@mail.gmail.com>
* 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