Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40776343D0 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:44:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93397-03 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:44:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from shrek.krogh.cc (2605ds1-ynoe.0.fullrate.dk [90.184.12.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E33634295 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:44:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766AD2D4F48 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at shrek.krogh.cc Received: from shrek.krogh.cc ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (shrek.krogh.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5JZ+hwsS5Lj for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [90.184.13.151] (2605ds1-ynoe.2.fullrate.dk [90.184.13.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jesper@krogh.cc) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 100A21EB8DF for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C1E537D.5030904@krogh.cc> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:29 +0200 From: Jesper Krogh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Aggressive autovacuuming ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.001 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_40=-0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201006/357 X-Sequence-Number: 39213 Hi. I have been wondering if anyone has been experimenting with "really agressive" autovacuuming. The database I'm adminstrating rarely have "long running" transactions (over several minutes). And a fair amount of buffercache and an OS cache of (at best 64GB). A lot of the OS cache is being used for read-caching. My thought was that if I tuned autovacuum to be "really aggressive" then I could get autovacuum to actually vacuum the tuples before they get evicted from the OS cache thus effectively "saving" the IO-overhead of vacuuming. The largest consequence I can see at the moment is that when I get a full vacuum (for preventing transaction-id wraparound) it would be run with the same aggressive settings, thus giving a real performance hit in that situation. Has anyone tried to do similar? What is your experience? Is the idea totally bogus? Jesper -- Jesper Krogh