On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:23:53PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Peter, > > > OK, it seems that while everyone wants autovacuum be more aggressive by > > default, no one has any good data to support one setting or another. I > > so I suggest that we just cut scale factor and base threshold in half > > right now (so it'd be 0.2, 0.1, 500, 250) and see about a > > better-researched setting for the next release. > > I'd recommend actually 0.4 and 0.2 and 200 and 100. I think that 20% and 10% > are too aggresive. 0.4 and 0.2 are what I've been using in production on > many machines. On the other hand, I think that the thresholds are much too > high -- that means that many small tables may never get vacuumed at all, even > after 100% row replacement. Do you think .2 and .1 (or even .08 and .04, as suggested by the default page fill percentage) are too aggressive *on small systems*? IMO, these defaults are meant more for less experienced folks, which are much more likely to be running a smaller database than a large one.
FWIW, I've been using .2 and .1 (as well as cutting the thresholds down; typically to between 200 and 400 and 100 and 200) without issue, though I did tweak the delay costs at one customer. > I'll admit, however, that I don't have test data to support this. > Unfortunately we never got to good Autovac tests on the STP before it went > down. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
