Re: Vaccum Stalling
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vaccum Stalling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 162867790707100945t13c2a090l11aa22451a4d0af5@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vaccum Stalling ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
> Hello > > I have similar problem with vacuum on 8.1 > > I have 256M table. pgstattuple reports 128M free. I stopped vacuum > after 1hour (maintenance_work_mem = 160M). I had not more time. > I test it on 8.3 with random data. Vacuum from 190M to 94M neded 30sec. It's much better. It isn't 100% comparable, but it is one from more arguments for upgrade. Regards Pavel Stehule > > > 2007/7/10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info> writes: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to > > >> a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more > > >> btbulkdelete scans than you need to. > > > > > What would you define as high for 7.4? I bumped it up to ~ 245mbs > > > > That sounds like plenty --- you only need 6 bytes per dead tuple, > > so that should be enough to handle all your 15-20M dead tuples in > > one scan. > > > > How big is this index again? > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/ > > >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: