On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
> high, do you?
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, you wrote:
> You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
> high, do you?
I'm not sure. Here's what we're running:
#vacuum_cost_delay = 0 # 0-1000 milliseconds
#vacuum_cost_page_hit = 1 # 0-10000 credits
#vacuum_cost_page_miss = 10 # 0-10000 credits
#vacuum_cost_page_dirty = 20 # 0-10000 credits
#vacuum_cost_limit = 200 # 0-10000 credits
autovacuum = on # enable autovacuum subprocess?
#autovacuum_naptime = 60 # time between autovacuum runs, in secs
autovacuum_naptime = 600 # changed by CW 9/11/06 to minimize interference with application
autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 1000 # min # of tuple updates before
# vacuum
autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 500 # min # of tuple updates before
autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.4 # fraction of rel size before
# vacuum
autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.2 # fraction of rel size before
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 500 # default vacuum cost delay for
# vacuum_cost_delay
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit = 200 # default vacuum cost limit for
# vacuum_cost_limit
The table on which it seems to be struggling is updated
many times per second and has 7.2M rows over 15GB total.
I'm trying to figure out how often it would be napping
on that...? Maybe we're just seeing a very conservative
vacuum on a large table...?
Ed
