From: Ron St-Pierre <ron.pgsql@shaw.ca>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071023161204.GK18013@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <471E18ED.3090704@shaw.ca>
<20071023161204.GK18013@alvh.no-ip.org>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ron St-Pierre wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, here's our system:
>> postgres 8.1.4
>>
>
> Upgrade to 8.1.10
>
Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this?
>
>> Here's the table information:
>> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60 indexes.
>>
>
> 60 indexes? You gotta be kidding. You really have 60 columns on which
> to scan?
>
>
Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for
company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our assumptions
about that? I would like to know definitively what are the most popular
columns. Do you think that rules would be a good approach for this?
(Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here)
>> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
>> vacuum_cost_limit = 100
>>
>
> Isn't this a bit high? What happens if you cut the delay to, say, 10?
> (considering you've lowered the limit to half the default)
>
>
Yes, Tom pointed this out too. I'll lower it and check out the results.
Ron
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: ron.pgsql@shaw.ca, alvherre@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
In-Reply-To: <471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca>
* 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