| From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Little, Douglas" <DOUGLAS(dot)LITTLE(at)orbitz(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Shapiro <mshapiro51(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgAdmin Support <pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fsm and vacuum |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 15:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF91025.7090601@lelarge.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-support |
Le 03/12/2010 16:24, Little, Douglas a écrit :
> Michael,
>
> I hear that vacuum full shouldn't be used.
> But what impact does the bloat have on performance?
Bigger on your hard, so slower to scan. And bigger in memory, so you
need to push blocks out to scan it. Other than that, not much.
It's better to not have a lot of bloat. I mean, if you deleted half of
your 20 GB table, it makes sens to do a VACUUM FULL.
> And, what do we do about the bloat in the pg tables?
Depends on the percentage of bloat and table size.
> I envision this would be a 1 time fix, now that we've got the fsm_relations set properly.
Could be.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-03 15:44:33 | Re: fsm and vacuum |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-03 15:40:16 | Re: fsm and vacuum |