Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> I have noticed that others (Alvaro, Joshua) suggest to set
> vacuum_cost_delay as low as 10 or 20 ms,
My suggestion is to set it as *high* as 10 or 20 ms. Compared to the
original default of 0ms. This is just because I'm lazy enough not to
have done any measuring o
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Erik Jones writes:
vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_limit (deactivated) 20/200
40/200 100/1000 150/1000 200/1000 300/1000
VACUUM ANALYZE time54 s112 s188
s109 s 152 s 190 s
Erik Jones writes:
>> vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_limit (deactivated) 20/200
>> 40/200 100/1000 150/1000 200/1000 300/1000
>>
>> VACUUM ANALYZE time54 s112 s188
>> s109 s 152 s 190 s 274 s
>> SELECT time
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:50 AM, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to tune the Cost-Based Vacuum Delay in a
8.2.5 server. The aim is to reduce as much as possible the
performance impact of vacuums on application queries, with the
background idea of running autovacuum as much as p
Hi,
I'm currently trying to tune the Cost-Based Vacuum Delay in a
8.2.5 server. The aim is to reduce as much as possible the
performance impact of vacuums on application queries, with the
background idea of running autovacuum as much as possible[1].
My test involves vacuuming a large table, and m
