Re: Buglist

Claudio Lapidus wrote:

> Bruno Wolff III wote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:17:41 +0530,
>> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> wrote:
>> >
>> > Idea of autovacuum is to reduce load on vacuum full. If you set
> shared_buffers
>> > higher and FSM properly for he update/delete load, autovacuum is
> expected to
>> > catch most of the dead tuples in shared cache only. If it is successful
> in
>> > doubling the frequency on vacuum full, that's a big win, isn't it?
>>
>> If you run a normal vacuum often enough, you shouldn't need to regularly
>> run vacuum full.
>
> Hmm, here we have a certain table, sort of FIFO, rows get inserted all the
> time, lay there for a couple of hours and get deleted "the other end
> around". We run normal vacuum almost constantly, but the table keeps
> growing. We had to implement a 'vacuum full' once a week to keep it under
> control.

What is the size of your database, how many tables do you have and what
are your FSM settings?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #