Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32736632B03 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:47:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50703-05 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:47:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:11:32.949733 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail1.activedatatech.net (mail1.activedatatech.net [216.154.205.166]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E77363271B for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:47:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.activedatatech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB9616E30F for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.activedatatech.net ([192.168.3.224]) by localhost (mail1.activedatatech.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02743-04 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.130] (dfb.livedatagroup.com [64.139.144.2]) by mail1.activedatatech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6E516E30C for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4BA93431.7050509@activedg.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:35:45 -0400 From: Szu-Ching Peckner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: tuning auto vacuum for highly active tables References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at activedatatech.net X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.307 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/175 X-Sequence-Number: 33974 we ran into the same problem, had big table, played with vacuum cost and delay, but can't shrink too much because of heavy insert and delete. we ended up with using slony for upgrade, also have data copy from fresh because of inital replication to shrink our large table, with minimum controlled downtime. Bhella Paramjeet-PFCW67 wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > We have a postgres database in which couple of tables get bloated due > to heavy inserts and deletes. Auto vacuum is running. My question is > how can I make auto vacuum more aggressive? I am thinking of enabling > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay and autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit > parameters. Can anyone suggest how to calculate the appropriate values > for these parameters and if there are any side effects of enabling > these parameters. Any help will be highly appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > Paramjeet Kaur >