On 2019-Apr-11, rihad wrote: > On 04/11/2019 06:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > rihad <rihad@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Thanks! Our autovacuum_work_mem = 1GB, so this probably means any space > > > would be available for reuse only at the end of the vacuum? > > It's six bytes per dead tuple, last I checked ... you do the math. > > > > > Are there > > > any downsides in decreasing it to, say, 64MB? I see only pluses ) > > Well, usually people prefer to minimize the number of passes over > > the indexes. > Yup, it's just that n_dead_tuples grows by several hundred thousand (the > table sees much much more updates than inserts) and disk usage grows > constantly between several hour long vacuum runs. Running vacuum full isn't > an option. Perhaps it'd be better to vacuum this table much more often. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
