From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
To: Ron St-Pierre <ron.pgsql@shaw.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:38:29 +0100
Message-ID: <87y7dtokfu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <471E18ED.3090704@shaw.ca>
References: <471E18ED.3090704@shaw.ca>
"Ron St-Pierre" <ron.pgsql@shaw.ca> writes:
> We vacuum only a few of our tables nightly, this one is the last one because it
> takes longer to run. I'll probably re-index it soon, but I would appreciate any
> advice on how to speed up the vacuum process (and the db in general).
...
> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
Well speeding up vacuum isn't really useful in itself. In fact you have vacuum
configured to run quite slowly by having vacuum_cost_delay set so high. You
have it set to sleep 200ms every few pages. If you lower that it'll run faster
but take more bandwidth away from the foreground tasks.
> Here's the table information:
> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60 indexes.
For what it's worth NUMERIC columns take more space than you might expect.
Figure a minimum of 12 bytes your rows are at about 1.5k each even if the
non-numeric columns aren't large themselves. What are the other columns?
> We were running autovacuum but it interfered with the updates to we shut it
> off.
Was it just the I/O bandwidth? I'm surprised as your vacuum_cost_delay is
quite high. Manual vacuum doesn't do anything differently from autovacuum,
neither should interfere directly with updates except by taking away
I/O bandwidth.
> We vacuum this table nightly, and it currently takes about 12 hours to
> vacuum it. Not much else is running during this period, nothing that should
> affect the table.
Is this time increasing over time? If once a day isn't enough then you may be
accumulating more and more dead space over time. In which case you may be
better off running it during prime time with a large vacuum_cost_delay (like
the 200 you have configured) rather than trying to get to run fast enough to
fit in the off-peak period.
> deadlock_timeout = 10000
I would not suggest having this quite this high. Raising it from the default
is fine but having a value larger than your patience is likely to give you the
false impression that something is hung if you should ever get a deadlock.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
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: stark@enterprisedb.com, ron.pgsql@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
In-Reply-To: <87y7dtokfu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.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