Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd?
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-11-21T21:23:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
Matthew, > Actually, this might be a necessary addition as pg_autovacuum currently > suffers from the startup transients that the FSM used to suffer from, > that is, it doesn't remember anything that happened the last time it > ran. A pg_autovacuum database could also be used to store thresholds > and counts from the last time it ran. I don't see how a seperate database is better than a table in the databases., except that it means scanning only one table and not one per database. For one thing, making it a seperate database could make it hard to back up and move your database+pg_avd config. But I don't feel strongly about it. > Where are you getting 13% from? 13% * 3/4 ~~ 10% And I think both of use agree that vacuuming tables with less than 10% changes is excessive and could lead to problems on its own, like overlapping vacuums. > Do you know of an easy way to get a > count of the total pages used by a whole cluster? Select sum(relpages) from pg_class. > I do like the concept though as long as we find good values for > min_fsm_percentage and min_autovac_scaling_factor. See above. I propose 0.13 and 0.1 > Which we already keep a copy of inside of pg_autovacuum, and update > after we issue a vacuum. Even easier then. BTW, do we have any provisions to avoid overlapping vacuums? That is, to prevent a second vacuum on a table if an earlier one is still running? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco