From: | David Schnur <dnschnur(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL memory requirements |
Date: | 2009-12-14 19:14:58 |
Message-ID: | 50000b2e0912141114ye6499casf35b5f39762898e3@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
>
> If you actually expect it to be re-used by the database sometime
> later, I would just stick with normal VACUUM (with adequate fsm
It may or may not be used again. Although disk is cheap, it is a
substantial amount of space, and I'd prefer it wasn't locked-up forever.
For a bit of extra context, the database is embedded within a piece of
software, which is the source of the uncertainty. If it was something I
could manage myself, I would just run the VACUUM FULL by hand at those times
when I knew it was necessary. As it stands, it's not predictable, and users
also tend to be less accepting of having that space locked up.
That's why I'm interested in more information on the memory & disk
requirements of the various maintenance functions. The main reason I've
stayed away from CLUSTER is because of the disk requirement. But I had no
idea it was possible for VACUUM FULL to run out of memory under normal
conditions, so I may need to reconsider the options.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benjamin Krajmalnik | 2009-12-14 19:17:22 | Error when clustering a table |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-14 18:50:40 | Re: VACUUM FULL memory requirements |