From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Whitney <swhitney(at)journyx(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovac vs manual with analyze |
Date: | 2010-03-15 22:35:43 |
Message-ID: | 20100315223543.GH3323@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Scott Whitney wrote:
> So, my questions are:
>
> a) Is the manual vacuum needed for performance reasons, or is auto-vac sufficient?
> b) How do my settings look?
> c) Is there a way that the clogs get cleared via autovac, would a full vac of just template1/template0 (if that last is possible) do it?
>
Autovacuum should be sufficient, provided that the FSM settings are
large enough to hold 20% (plus a bit of slack) of your database total
size in dead tuples. If they are not, your database starts to bloat and
you need ugly hacks like vacuum full to recover the dead space.
In 8.1, clog is only cleared by database-wide vacuums, which IIRC
autovac doesn't do unless it does a for-Xid-wraparound run, which is not
often. Probably a weekly database-wide vacuum (not full, i.e. vacuumdb
without -f) is enough.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-16 01:01:33 | Re: Mixing DBLink versions |
Previous Message | David Jantzen | 2010-03-15 21:29:51 | Mixing DBLink versions |