Re: vacuum locking
От | Stephen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum locking |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bmrq0s$2tpa$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | vacuum locking (Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum locking
|
Список | 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 >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: