From: | Ellen Cyran <ellen(at)urban(dot)csuohio(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: After how many updates should a vacuum be performed? |
Date: | 2006-09-13 18:07:23 |
Message-ID: | 450848DB.9030303@urban.csuohio.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Someone else was doing the vacuum that didn't complete this last time
and they started it at night so no other queries were running. I wasn't
monitoring I/O usage at the time and in the past I just always removed
the indexes and vacuumed when this happened.
This is on a Solaris server, would you suggest any additional commands
besides iostat to monitor the i/o?
Ellen
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ellen Cyran <ellen(at)urban(dot)csuohio(dot)edu> writes:
>
>>>Hm, that should be OK. What do you have maintenance_work_mem set to?
>
>
>>It's set at the default 16384.
>
>
> That should be plenty for getting rid of a million or so tuples. I'm
> wondering if you are seeing some weird locking effect. Is the VACUUM
> constantly busy with I/O or does it sit and wait at points? Do you have
> other queries actively accessing the table during the VACUUM?
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ray Stell | 2006-09-13 22:54:38 | Re: COPY FROM command v8.1.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-13 17:27:21 | Re: After how many updates should a vacuum be performed? |