Re: Question about VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: Question about VACUUM
Date
Msg-id CAOR=d=0_sCcr73L-8GqOGD9YTKaYEUmqd+dLZR-Ad351QmbHLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question about VACUUM  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Ernesto Quiñones<ernestoq@gmail.com> wrote:
>> vacuum_cost_limit  200

> We've boosted this to 600.  Once you're in a "steady state", this is
> the setting you might want to adjust up or down as needed to make
> cleanup aggressive enough without putting a noticeable dent in
> performance while it is running.

On the busy production systems I've worked on in the past, we had this
cranked up to several thousand along with 10 or so workers to keep up
on a busy machine.  The more IO your box has, the more you can afford
to make vacuum / autovacuum aggressive.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade
Next
From: Tory M Blue
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade