On Thursday November 16 2006 3:33 am, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Ed L. wrote:
> > One idea would be to partition the table some how such that
> > the chunks getting vacuumed are much smaller and thus not
> > such an impact. On the app side, I suppose we could break
> > the table into multiple tables
"Ed L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
>> high, do you?
> I'm not sure. Here's what we're running:
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 500 # default vacuum cost delay for
Ed L. wrote:
One idea would be to partition the table some how such that the
chunks getting vacuumed are much smaller and thus not such an
impact. On the app side, I suppose we could break the table
into multiple tables on some dimension (time) to make the vacuum
impacts smaller.
You're run
On Nov 14, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Ed L. wrote:
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
high, do you?
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, you wrote:
You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
high,
On Wednesday November 15 2006 6:30 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > The table in
> > question appears to be the pathological case for vacuum:
> > very large with lots of frequent UPDATEs. It's essentially
> > a log table.
>
> A big log table where the log entries are being updated?
> Certainly so
Ed L. wrote:
> Well, I think we clearly have an HPUX CPU bottleneck (long pri
> queue, high cpu utilization, high user cpu %, lots of processes
> "blocked on pri").
>
> It seems to get worst and slow all queries down across the board
> when autovac tries to vacuum a 15GB table. I'm guessing t
On Tuesday November 14 2006 1:02 pm, Ed L. wrote:
> On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set
> > unreasonably high, do you?
>
> On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, you wrote:
> > You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings s
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
> high, do you?
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:56 pm, you wrote:
> You don't have the vacuum cost delay settings set unreasonably
> high, do you?
I'm not sure. Here's what we
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:53:56PM -0700, Ed L. wrote:
> On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:49 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:20:30AM -0700, Ed L. wrote:
> > > I have an 8.1.2 autovac which appears to be hanging/blocking
> > > every few days or so, but we're don't understand wha
On Tuesday November 14 2006 12:49 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:20:30AM -0700, Ed L. wrote:
> > I have an 8.1.2 autovac which appears to be hanging/blocking
> > every few days or so, but we're don't understand what's
> > causing it. I wasn't able to catch a backtrace before
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:20:30AM -0700, Ed L. wrote:
> I have an 8.1.2 autovac which appears to be hanging/blocking
> every few days or so, but we're don't understand what's causing
> it. I wasn't able to catch a backtrace before we killed it. I
> do not see autovac locks in the pg_locks vie
I have an 8.1.2 autovac which appears to be hanging/blocking
every few days or so, but we're don't understand what's causing
it. I wasn't able to catch a backtrace before we killed it. I
do not see autovac locks in the pg_locks view.
Will running 8.1.5 buy me anything in terms of being able t
12 matches
Mail list logo
