Re: Vacuum wait time problem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie
>>> <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> vacuum_cost_delay = 0
>>>> That was the trick for me. It was set to 250(ms), where it took 5 hours
>>>> for a vacuum to run. Now it takes 5-15 minutes.
>>
>>> Wow!!!  250 ms is HUGE in the scheme of vacuum cost delay.  even 10ms
>>> is usually plenty to slow down vacuum enough to keep it out of your
>>> way and double to quadruple your vacuum times.
>>
>> I wonder whether we ought to tighten the allowed range of
>> vacuum_cost_delay.  The upper limit is 1000ms at the moment;
>> but that's clearly much higher than is useful, and it seems
>> to encourage people to pick silly values ...
>
> I agree.  I can't imagine using a number over 50 or so.

Although I'd probably just emit a log warning for anything over that
saying that values over 50 will result in very very long vacuum times.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux