On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:10 PM John Lumby <johnlumby@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the test workload does not run any explicit VACUUM command,
> it relies on autovacuum with these settings
> (same settings for 9.4 and 12beta2)
> To correspond to your " more churn between each VACUUM"
> Would you then suggest increasing
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay and/or autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor?
Well, you're still running autovacuum very aggressively here. It'll
easily keep up when run on a relatively small table such as this.
BTW, you should definitely run the latest point release of 9.4 -- not
9.4.6. You're missing years of bug fixes by sticking to such an old
point release, including some rather nasty ones -- 9.4.23 is the
current 9.4 point release. Actually, 9.4 is going to lose support this
year, as the oldest stable version that's currently supported by the
community.
--
Peter Geoghegan
