From: | Joshua Daniel Franklin <joshuadfranklin(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael G(dot) Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres performance slowly gets worse over a month |
Date: | 2002-07-26 16:11:25 |
Message-ID: | 20020726161125.95391.qmail@web20005.mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking.
--- "Michael G. Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com> wrote:
> You then remove a bunch of old tuples. Space is still X+Y. You now
> have 2 basic options:
>
> 1. Run a vacuum full -- this locks the entier table, and de-fragments
> all unused space, so space is now back to X. Table will grow incremently
> by Y over the next 6 months again.
> 2. Run a lazy vacuum-- no lock, no de-fragment, space is still X+Y.
> Assuming max_fsm_pages was large enough to hold all the changed pages,
> over the next 6 months, the space remains fixed at about X+Y. You are
> now re-using the unused table space.
>
> Either solution will work. If you really want to cut disk space, choose
> 1. If you want to keep the space at about it optimal size and avoid any
> downtime, choose 2.
>
> --Michael
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | LUTZ GEOFFREY | 2002-07-26 16:59:30 | unsubscribe |
Previous Message | Michael G. Martin | 2002-07-26 15:38:41 | Re: Postgres performance slowly gets worse over a month |