Re: Vacuum looping?
| От | Steven Flatt |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Vacuum looping? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 357fa7590707300904u4c2eb219p87793b5d19730638@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Vacuum looping? ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Vacuum looping?
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On 7/28/07, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
What are your vacuum_cost_* settings? If you set those too aggressively
you'll be in big trouble.
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 100
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 200
These are generally fine, autovacuum keeps up, and there is minimal impact on the system.
vacuum_cost_delay = 100
vacuum_cost_limit = 1000
We set this cost_limit a little higher so that, in the few cases where we have to intervene manually, vacuum runs faster.
The second pass on the vacuum means that maintenance_work_memory isn't
large enough.
maintenance_work_mem is set to 256MB and I don't think we want to make this any bigger by default. Like I say above, generally autovacuum runs fine. If we do run into this situation again (lots of OOM queries and lots to cleanup), we'll probably increase maintenance_work_mem locally and run a vacuum in that session.
Good to know that vacuum was doing the right thing.
Thanks,
Steve
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: