On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > There were some fixes for autovacuum problems in 9.2.3. Some other > fixes will be coming when 9.2.5 is released. Many of your problems > are likely to go away by staying up-to-date on minor releases. > > By setting this so high, you are increasing the amount of work > autovacuum will need to do when it does work on a table. A smaller > value tends to give less "bursty" performance. Also, any small, > frequently-updated tables may bloat quite a bit in 50000 > transactions. > > Each autovacuum worker will allocate this much RAM. If all of your > autovacuum workers wake up at once, would losing 2GB for each one > from your cache cause a significant performance hit? (Since you > didn't say how much RAM the machine has, it's impossible to tell.) > > What does running this in psql this show?: > > \x on > select * from pg_database where datname = 'template0'; > select * from pg_stat_database where datname = 'template0';
In addition to Kevin's notes, I think it is also worth to look at the result of the query below. select name, setting from pg_settings where name ~ 'vacuum' and setting <> reset_val; -- Kind regards, Sergey Konoplev PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp +1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979 gray...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
