| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Holdren <scott(at)holdren(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment (Modified by Thomas F. O'Connell) |
| Date: | 2004-07-13 23:58:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20494.1089763104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Thomas F.O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
> It's a high turnover database, in that the applications that use it
> perform thousands of inserts, updates, and deletes on a daily basis.
> We're seeing about 5-10 GB of increased disk space used on a daily
> basis if a vacuum (full) or reindexdb is not performed. We were doing
> one vacuum analyze full a week with nightly vacuum analyzes.
Try hourly vacuums. If that doesn't stem the tide, make it more often
(or try autovacuum). Also make sure that your FSM settings are large
enough; if they're not then no amount of plain vacuuming will keep you
out of trouble.
With sufficiently frequent plain vacuums you really shouldn't need
vacuum full at all.
I can't recommend an analyze frequency on what you've told us.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-07-14 00:03:33 | Re: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment |
| Previous Message | Carlos Roberto Chamorro Mostacilla | 2004-07-13 23:47:36 | Function and RowType |