Re: Vacuum performance question - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: Vacuum performance question
Date
Msg-id 1060884297.14006.27.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Vacuum performance question  ("Jeremy M. Guthrie" <jeremy.guthrie@berbee.com>)
List pgsql-performance
> I've allocated 196MB of RAM to vacuums.

I would be willing to bet that you have kicked the system into swap
because of this.  Hence the large decrease in speed.

Try sliding back to 32MB for vacuum. A ton more ram doesn't really help
it all that much.

Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jeremy M. Guthrie"
Date:
Subject: Vacuum performance question
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings