Jeffrey Baker wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# show maintenance_work_mem ;
maintenance_work_mem
--
16384
That appears to be the default. I will try increasing this. Can I
increase it globally from a single backend,
"Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I increased it to 1GB, restarted the vacuum, and system performance
> seems the same. The root of the problem, that an entire CPU is in the
> iowait state and the storage device is doing random i/o, is unchanged:
Yeah, but you just reduced the number
Jeffrey Baker escribió:
> That's rather more like it. I guess I always imagined that VACUUM was
> a sort of linear process, not random, and that it should proceed at
> sequential scan speeds.
It's linear for the table, but there are passes for indexes which are
random in 8.1. That code was rewr
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Th
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This autovacuum has been hammering my server with purely random i/o
> > > for half a week.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This autovacuum has been hammering my server with purely random i/o
> > for half a week. The table is only 20GB and the i/o subsystem is good
> > for 250MB/s sequential and a
"Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This autovacuum has been hammering my server with purely random i/o
> for half a week. The table is only 20GB and the i/o subsystem is good
> for 250MB/s sequential and a solid 5kiops. When should I expect it to
> end (if ever)?
What have you got mai
