| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |