Re: Vacuum looping? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steven Flatt
Subject Re: Vacuum looping?
Date
Msg-id 357fa7590707300904u4c2eb219p87793b5d19730638@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum looping?  ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>)
Responses Re: Vacuum looping?
List 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
 

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: Questions on Tags table schema
Next
From: Nis Jørgensen
Date:
Subject: Re: Slow query with backwards index scan