On Sat, April 2, 2011 21:26, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Henry C. <he...@cityweb.co.za> wrote: > >> On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote: >> >>> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with >>> manual vacuum any more. >> >> Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy that autovac processes run for weeks >> and never catch up (insufficient h/w for the app quite frankly - the >> addition of some more SSD drives have already helped). I eventually run up >> against the wraparound wall and the only way forward is to stop everything >> and dump/restore (vacuuming the entire db would take an unknown period of N >> x weeks - dumping/restoring completes in a day or two). > > Have you tried upping the aggressiveness of autovacuum?
Thanks for the suggestion - I'm going to give autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay=0 a try (instead of the default 20ms, which if I'm reading the docs correctly, means the same aggressiveness as a manual vacuum), and see how things go in terms of the I/O cost/responsiveness and ensuring the damn vacuums finish in a reasonable time before the wraparound tactical nuke hits :) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
