On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Ray Stell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It really depends on the system. Most of our systems run anywhere
from
10-25ms. I find that any more than that, Vacuum takes too long.
How do you measure the impact of setting i
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> It really depends on the system. Most of our systems run anywhere from
> 10-25ms. I find that any more than that, Vacuum takes too long.
How do you measure the impact of setting it to 12 as opposed to 15?
-
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:52:50PM +0900, Galy Lee wrote:
> 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 thre
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
>> I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
>> utilization.
>
> I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
> this sound reasonable?
It really depends on the system. Most of our systems run any
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
utilization.
I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
this sound reasonable?
The pro
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
> > utilization.
>
> I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
> this sound reasonable?
For a lightly lo
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
> utilization.
I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
this sound reasonable?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Rep
