On 2/25/19 8:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 02:06, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: >> On 2/25/19 1:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:42 PM David Rowley >>> <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> The current default vacuum_cost_limit of 200 seems to be 15 years old >>>> and was added in f425b605f4e. >>>> >>>> Any supporters for raising the default? >>> I also think that the current default limit is far too conservative. >> I agree entirely. In my experience you are usually much better off if >> vacuum finishes quickly. Personally I think our default scale factors >> are horrible too, especially when there are tables with large numbers of >> rows. > Agreed that the scale factors are not perfect, but I don't think > changing them is as quite a no-brainer as the vacuum_cost_limit, so > the attached patch just does the vacuum_cost_limit. > > I decided to do the times by 10 option that I had mentioned.... Ensue > debate about that... > > I'll add this to the March commitfest and set the target version as PG12. >
This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute objections. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
