Re: good old VACUUM FULL

On 03/23/2011 01:16 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> Then either cluster failed (did you get an error message) or the table
> was not bloated. Given that it looks like it was greatly reduced in
> size by the vacuum full, I'd guess cluster failed for some reason.

Or it just bloated again. Remember, he still hasn't changed his
max_fsm_pages setting, and that table apparently experiences *very* high
turnover.

A 25x bloat factor isn't unheard of for such a table. We have one that
needs to have autovacuum or be manually vacuumed frequently because it
experiences several thousand update/deletes per minute. The daily
turnover of that particular table is around 110x. If our fsm settings
were too low, or we didn't vacuum regularly, I could easily see that
table quickly becoming unmanageable. I fear for his django_session table
for similar reasons.

Felix, I know you don't want to "experiment" with kernel parameters, but
you *need* to increase your max_fsm_pages setting.

--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer.php
for terms and conditions related to this email