Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table
| От | Rigmor Ukuhe |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20050830212545.5472718E718@linux.finestmedia.tv обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | When to do a vacuum for highly active table (Markus Benne <thing@m-bass.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Markus Benne > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:14 AM > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: [PERFORM] When to do a vacuum for highly active table > > We have a highly active table that has virtually all > entries updated every 5 minutes. Typical size of the > table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat. > > We are currently vaccuming hourly, and towards the end > of the hour we are seeing degradation, when compared > to the top of the hour. > > Vaccum is slowly killing our system, as it is starting > to take up to 10 minutes, and load at the time of > vacuum is 6+ on a Linux box. During the vacuum, > overall system is goin unresponsive, then comes back > once vacuum completes. Play with vacuum_cost_delay option. In our case it made BIG difference (going from very heavy hitting to almost unnoticed vacuuming.) Hope it helps. Rigmor Ukuhe > > If we run vacuum less frequently, degradation > continues to the point that we can't keep up with the > throughput, plus vacuum takes longer anyway. > > Becoming quite a pickle:-) > > We are thinking of splitting the table in two: the > part the updates often, and the part the updates > infrequently as we suspect that record size impacts > vacuum. > > Any ideas? > > > Thanks, > Mark > > ----------------- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: