Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>>> I am taking the liberty to also lower the vacuum and analyze threshold
>>>>> default values to 50, per previous discussion.
>> Did we also reach any consensus about lowering the percentage of dead tuples
>> in a table before we trigger vacuum? I think 20% is way too high and 5% is
>> saner. I actually think it would be better even lower but would be ok with 5%.
>
> We didn't, but while I agree with the idea, I think 5% is too low. I
> don't want autovacuum to get excessively aggressive. Is 10% not enough?
It depends really. 10% on a small table seems like a waste except that
small tables are quick to vacuum. 10% on a table with 20 million rows,
is a lot of dead rows.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> How about the analyze scale factor, should we keep the current 10%? I
> have less of a problem with reducing it further since analyze is cheaper
> than vacuum.
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
