From: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz> |
---|---|
To: | Gauri Kanekar <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication Syatem |
Date: | 2008-04-29 11:19:38 |
Message-ID: | 4817044A.6000800@Sheeky.Biz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gauri Kanekar wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Can you explain me in detail why u said vacuum full is making the things
> worst.
> We do vacuum full, as vacuum verbose analyse dont regain space for us.
>
vacuum full stops all access so that the data files can be re-writen
without the unused space.
normal vacuum will update the records of what space is no longer used so
that it can then be reused with the next update/insert. Your db size
will not shrink straight away but it will stop growing until you use all
the free space left from previous update/delete
The more frequently you do a normal vacuum the less time it will take
and things will run a lot smoother with your file size growing slowly to
accommodate new data.
Expanding on what others have mentioned as a drawback of vacuum full -
you should look at REINDEX'ing as well (maybe one index or table at a
time). You will most likely find this will reclaim some disk space for
you as well.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-04-29 11:25:38 | Re: Replication Syatem |
Previous Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-04-29 11:05:40 | Re: Replication Syatem |