Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1y0irGcbNRaxtUBJdNPHRt9AMorwgKM-DzAPZiwKTLwSw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
 
> (b) users
> making ridiculous settings changes to avoid the problems caused by
> anti-wraparound vacuums kicking in at inconvenient times and eating up
> too many resources.

Some recent experiences I've had have also bought home to me that vacuum
problems are often of the user's own making.

"My database is slow"
->
"This autovacuum thing is using up lots of I/O and CPU, I'll increase
this delay setting here"


Do you think this was the correct diagnosis but with the wrong action taken, or was the diagnosis incorrect in the first place (i.e. it may be using some IO and CPU, but that isn't what was  causing the initial problem)?  And if the diagnosis was correct, was it causing problems under default settings, or only because they already turned off the cost delay?

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Следующее
От: Noah Misch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Partitioning performance: cache stringToNode() of pg_constraint.ccbin