Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am taking the liberty to also lower the vacuum and analyze threshold
default values to 50, per previous discussion.
Did we also reach any consensus about lowering the percentage of dead tuples
in a table before we trigger vacuum? I think 20% is way too high and 5% is
saner. I actually think it would be better even lower but would be ok with 5%.
We didn't, but while I agree with the idea, I think 5% is too low. I
don't want autovacuum to get excessively aggressive. Is 10% not enough?
It depends really. 10% on a small table seems like a waste except that
small tables are quick to vacuum. 10% on a table with 20 million rows,
is a lot of dead rows.
Joshua D. Drake
How about the analyze scale factor, should we keep the current 10%? I
have less of a problem with reducing it further since analyze is cheaper
than vacuum.
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
