Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:52:02AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:

I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
this sound reasonable?

The problem in here is that we can not easily find a direct relation between Cost delay <-> CPU/IO utilization <--> real performance (response time in peak hour)

It is very hard for any normal user to set this correctly. I think the experience / trial-and-error approach is awful for the user, every DBA need to be an expert of vacuum to keep the system stable. For vacuum is still a big threat to the performance, a more intelligent way is needed.

A lot of efforts have contributed to make vacuum to be a more lightweight operation, but I think we should still need more efforts on how to make it can be used easily and safely.

So I have proposed the "vacuum in time" feature in previous; just let vacuum know how long can it runs, and then it will minimize the impact in the time span for you. Some argue that it should not have the maintenance window assumption, but the most safely way is to run in the maintenance window.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to