Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F99D64FCF5 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:42:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90174-07 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:42:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from 30.mail-out.ovh.net (30.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.62.213]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D3B464FCD0 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:42:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 11477 invoked by uid 503); 24 Aug 2008 14:31:35 -0000 Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail185.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 30.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Aug 2008 14:31:35 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Aug 2008 14:30:46 -0000 Received: from ita73-2-82-246-12-243.fbx.proxad.net (HELO localhost.localdomain) (dforums@vieonet.com@82.246.12.243) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Aug 2008 14:30:45 -0000 Message-ID: <48B170B2.9000401@vieonet.com> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:31:14 +0200 From: dforum User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: Loic Petit , max@nts.biz.ua, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Large number of tables slow insert References: <1775c5ea0808231759x6b43520du4f949dbe25f4b316@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 8112390303988893642 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.246.12.243 (ita73-2-82-246-12-243.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.5/N X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/305 X-Sequence-Number: 31186 hello to all, I've a question regarding the folowing comments. How to estimate vacuum aggressiveness ? It's for me very deficulte to setup the autovaccum setting correctly. It seems for me that it is not enough aggressive, but when I change the settings the autovacuum process is almost always running. So how to setup it, for around 40000 insert, update, delete per 5 minutes regards david Scott Marlowe a écrit : > On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Loic Petit wrote: > >> 1 table contains about 5 indexes : timestamp, one for each sensor type - 3, >> and one for packet counting (measures packet dropping) >> (I reckon that this is quite heavy, but a least the timestamp and the values >> are really usefull) >> > > But what's the update rate on these indexes and tables? I'm wondering > if you're not vacuuming aggresively enough to keep up with bursty > update patterns > >