Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu>, Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Date: 2003-03-17 15:58:39
Message-ID: 87hea2assw.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu> writes:
> > So, either it is broken, or doing a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE rather than just
> > VACUUM ANALYZE made all the difference. Is this possible (the latter,
> > we know the former is possible...)?
>
> If your FSM parameters in postgresql.conf are too small, then plain
> vacuums might have failed to keep up with the available free space,
> leading to a situation where vacuum full is essential. Did you happen
> to notice whether the vacuum full shrunk the database's disk footprint
> noticeably?

This seems to be a frequent problem.

Is there any easy way to check an existing table for lost free space?

Is there any way vauum could do this check and print a warning suggesting
using vaccuum full and/or increasing fsm parameters if it finds such?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-03-17 16:11:05 Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-03-17 06:34:20 Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org