Re: vacuum locking - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stephen
Subject Re: vacuum locking
Date
Msg-id bmrq0s$2tpa$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to vacuum locking  (Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz>)
Responses Re: vacuum locking
List pgsql-performance
I ran into the same problem with VACUUM on my Linux box. If you are running
Linux, take a look at "elvtune" or read this post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stephen+vacuum+linux&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=gRdjb.7484%241o2.77%40nntp-post.primus.ca&rnum=3

Regards, Stephen


"Rob Nagler" <nagler@bivio.biz> wrote in message
news:16272.30527.120343.547492@jump.bivio.com...
> Manfred Koizar writes:
> > ISTM you are VACCUMing too aggressively.  You are reclaiming less than
> > 1% and 0.005%, respectively, of tuples.  I would increase FSM settings
> > to ca. 1000 fsm_relations, 100000 fsm_pages and VACUUM *less* often,
> > say every two hours or so.
>
> I did this.  We'll see how it goes.
>
> > ... or configure autovacuum to VACUUM a table when it has 10% dead
> > tuples.
>
> This solution doesn't really fix the fact that VACUUM consumes the
> disk while it is running.  I want to avoid the erratic performance on
> my web server when VACUUM is running.
>
> mfg,
> Rob
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: William Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL data on a NAS device ?
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Concern