Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
От | Matthew T. O'Connor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 421B9CD9.6090703@zeut.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | is pg_autovacuum so effective ? (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Gaetano Mendola wrote: >pg_class after the vacuum full for that table > > relfilenode | relname | relpages | reltuples >-------------+----------+----------+------------- > 18376 | messages | 63307 | 1.60644e+06 > > >pg_class before the vacuum full for that table > > relfilenode | relname | relpages | reltuples >-------------+----------+----------+------------- > 18376 | messages | 69472 | 1.60644e+06 > > > >how was possible accumulate 6000 pages wasted on that table? > >Between these two calls: >[2005-02-22 05:25:03 CET] Performing: VACUUM ANALYZE "public"."messages" >[2005-02-22 15:20:39 CET] Performing: VACUUM ANALYZE "public"."messages" > >1768 rows where inserted, and I had 21578 updated for that rows ( each >row have a counter incremented for each update ) so that table is not >so heavy updated > >I'm running autovacuum with these parameters: >pg_autovacuum -d 3 -v 300 -V 0.1 -S 0.8 -a 200 -A 0.1 -D > > >shall I run it in a more aggressive way ? May be I'm missing >something. > Well without thinking too much, I would first ask about your FSM settings? If they aren't big enought that will cause bloat. Try bumping your FSM settings and then see if you reach steady state.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: