On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:10 PM John Lumby <johnlumby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually the test workload does not run any explicit VACUUM command, > it relies on autovacuum with these settings > (same settings for 9.4 and 12beta2) > To correspond to your " more churn between each VACUUM" > Would you then suggest increasing > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay and/or autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor? Well, you're still running autovacuum very aggressively here. It'll easily keep up when run on a relatively small table such as this. BTW, you should definitely run the latest point release of 9.4 -- not 9.4.6. You're missing years of bug fixes by sticking to such an old point release, including some rather nasty ones -- 9.4.23 is the current 9.4 point release. Actually, 9.4 is going to lose support this year, as the oldest stable version that's currently supported by the community. -- Peter Geoghegan
