| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rafael Domiciano <rafael(dot)domiciano(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Problems |
| Date: | 2008-11-26 19:54:05 |
| Message-ID: | 492DA95D.3010303@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Rafael Domiciano wrote:
> I'm not using autovacuum. Regular vacuum goes ok.
> To see the last 10 lines of verbose i will need to run vacuum tonight
>
> If a run a reindex before the vacuum full, increase the "speed" of
> doing vacuum? I found something about it googling.
It might help a bit, but by the end of VACUUM FULL you would need to run
reindex again as VACUUM FULL tends to cause a lot of index bloat. It
is normal for tables to have some slack space, so if you do a regular
vacuum every day (or let autovacuum) it's normal for the table to be a
bit bigger than after a VACUUM FULL, but they should ready steady state
and stop growing.
You may also want to look into using CLUSTER it will rewrite the whole
table and is typically much more efficient that VACUUM FULL, but it
requires 2x disk space while running.
Matt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-11-26 21:04:08 | Re: Vacuum Problems |
| Previous Message | Jan-Peter Seifert | 2008-11-26 18:39:18 | Re: Vacuum Problems |