* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > At PGConf US Philly last week I was talking with Jim and Jan about 
> > performance. One of the items that came up is that PostgreSQL can't run 
> > full throttle for long periods of time. The long and short is that no 
> > matter what, autovacuum can't keep up. This is what I have done:
> Try reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay more, and/or increasing
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit.

Or get rid of the cost delay entirely and let autovacuum actually go as
fast as it can when it's run.  The assertion that it can't keep up is
still plausible, but configuring autovacuum to sleep regularly and then
complaining that it's not able to keep up doesn't make sense.

Reducing the nap time might also be helpful if autovacuum is going as
fast as it can and it's able to clear a table in less than a minute.

There have been discussions on this list about parallel vacuum of a
particular table as well; to address this issue I'd encourage reviewing
those discussions and looking at writing a patch to implement that
feature as that would address the case where the table is large enough
that autovacuum simply can't get through all of it before the other
backends have used all space available and then substantially increased
the size of the relation (leading to vacuum on the table running for



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to