Re: 12 hour table vacuums - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ron St-Pierre
Subject Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date
Msg-id 471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 12 hour table vacuums  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Re: 12 hour table vacuums
List pgsql-performance
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ron St-Pierre wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, here's our system:
>>   postgres 8.1.4
>>
>
> Upgrade to 8.1.10
>
Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this?
>
>> Here's the table information:
>> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60 indexes.
>>
>
> 60 indexes?  You gotta be kidding.  You really have 60 columns on which
> to scan?
>
>
Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for
company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our assumptions
about that? I would like to know definitively what are the most popular
columns. Do you think that rules would be a good approach for this?
(Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here)
>> vacuum_cost_delay = 200
>> vacuum_cost_limit = 100
>>
>
> Isn't this a bit high?  What happens if you cut the delay to, say, 10?
> (considering you've lowered the limit to half the default)
>
>
Yes, Tom pointed this out too. I'll lower it and check out the results.

Ron


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Ron St-Pierre
Date:
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums