Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1y0irGcbNRaxtUBJdNPHRt9AMorwgKM-DzAPZiwKTLwSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
 
> (b) users
> making ridiculous settings changes to avoid the problems caused by
> anti-wraparound vacuums kicking in at inconvenient times and eating up
> too many resources.

Some recent experiences I've had have also bought home to me that vacuum
problems are often of the user's own making.

"My database is slow"
->
"This autovacuum thing is using up lots of I/O and CPU, I'll increase
this delay setting here"


Do you think this was the correct diagnosis but with the wrong action taken, or was the diagnosis incorrect in the first place (i.e. it may be using some IO and CPU, but that isn't what was  causing the initial problem)?  And if the diagnosis was correct, was it causing problems under default settings, or only because they already turned off the cost delay?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning performance: cache stringToNode() of pg_constraint.ccbin