Re: 12 hour table vacuums
От | Ron St-Pierre |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 12 hour table vacuums |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 471E2895.4030601@shaw.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 12 hour table vacuums (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Re: 12 hour table vacuums |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Ron St-Pierre wrote: > > >> Okay, here's our system: >> postgres 8.1.4 >> > > Upgrade to 8.1.10 > Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this? > >> Here's the table information: >> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60 indexes. >> > > 60 indexes? You gotta be kidding. You really have 60 columns on which > to scan? > > Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our assumptions about that? I would like to know definitively what are the most popular columns. Do you think that rules would be a good approach for this? (Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here) >> vacuum_cost_delay = 200 >> vacuum_cost_limit = 100 >> > > Isn't this a bit high? What happens if you cut the delay to, say, 10? > (considering you've lowered the limit to half the default) > > Yes, Tom pointed this out too. I'll lower it and check out the results. Ron
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: