From: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)amber(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partial VACUUM FULL |
Date: | 2004-03-23 21:24:15 |
Message-ID: | 6FD2339C-7D10-11D8-BA71-003065E15634@amber.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 23, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Bill Moran wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>> If I cancel a VACUUM FULL, is the work that was done up until that
>> point thrown away? I have a table that needs vacuuming but I can't
>> accept the downtime involved in vacuuming.
>
> Not sure about the "cancel vacuum full" question, but I had some other
> thoughts
> for you.
>
> Keep in mind that a plain vacuum can do a lot of good if done
> regularly, and
> it doesn't lock tables, thus the database can be in regular use while
> it's
> run. As a result, there is no downtime involved with regularly
> scheduled
> vacuums.
Unfortunately, with some things, and I'm not sure why, as I don't
understand the VACUUM stuff that well, I had assumed that running
VACUUM ANALYZE nightly would be enough. After I noticed that a
specific database (very transient data) had bloated to nearly 7Gb, I
ran VACUUM FULL on it, which took an hour or so, and it was reduced
down to under 1GB.
Is there a better way to deal with this? This is on 7.3, and I wonder
if 7.4 fixed that, but it's been hard to schedule time to upgrade.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli (at) amber.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Hoopman | 2004-03-23 21:25:17 | self referencing tables/ nested sets etc... |
Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2004-03-23 21:20:22 | Re: partial VACUUM FULL |