On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Ofer Israeli <oferi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Something specific that you refer to in autovacuum's non-perfection, that is, what types of issues are you aware of? I refer to its criteria for when to perform vacuum/analyze. Especially analyze. It usually fails to detect the requirement to analyze a table - sometimes value distributions change without triggering an autoanalyze. It's expected, as the autoanalyze works on number of tuples updates/inserted relative to table size, which is too generic to catch business-specific conditions. As everything, it depends on your business. The usage pattern, the kinds of updates performed, how data varies in time... but in essence, I've found that forcing a periodic vacuum/analyze of tables beyond what autovacuum does improves stability. You know a lot more about the business and access/update patterns than autovacuum, so you can schedule them where they are needed and autovacuum wouldn't. > As for the I/O - this is indeed true that it can generate much activity, but the way I see it, if you run performance tests and the tests succeed in all parameters even with heavy I/O, then you are good to go. That is, I don't mind the server doing lots of I/O as long as it's not causing lags in processing the messages that it handles. If you don't mind the I/O, by all means, crank it up. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
