Re: Database size Vs performance degradation

From: "Fernando Ike" <fike(at)midstorm(dot)org>
To: "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
Date: 2008-08-03 23:51:40
Message-ID: 1ed3e91a0808031651n4f3ab56ah632a9544a61f22f6@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

2008/8/1 Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Andrzej Zawadzki wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I'm wrong but if this "bulk insert and delete" process is cyclical
>> then You don't need vacuum full.
>> Released tuples will fill up again with fresh data next day - after
>> regular vacuum.
>
> Yes, a regular manual vacuum will prevent the table from growing more than
> it needs to. However, a vacuum full is required to actually reduce the size
> of the table from 7.5G to 2.7G if that hasn't been done on the production
> system already.

One good possibility is use pg8.3 for fix problem. Enable
Autovacuum+HOT was won a significant performance compared with 8.2 and
minor versions. :)

Kind Regards,
--
Fernando Ike
http://www.midstorm.org/~fike/weblog

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message H. Hall 2008-08-04 11:20:45 Re: SSD Performance Article
Previous Message Mathias Stjernström 2008-08-02 10:39:19 Re: Nls sorting in Postgresql-8.3.3