| From: | Peter Koczan <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is regular vacuuming with autovacuum needed? |
| Date: | 2010-08-16 20:47:47 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin5zg4vOTNi9W+5Vh=qu_N=j32w-sWVhJSJU=F_@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If autovac is properly configured, very few, if any, PostgreSQL
> databases need routine vacuuming jobs. However, other than sleep
> states making it run slower, autovacuum is no different than a regular
> old vacuum. Are you sure this wasn't a vacuum full, which is almost
> never a desired operation to be regularly scheduled?
I'm sure it wasn't a full vacuum. I almost never do those and when I
do, I have to schedule downtime.
I think another process got hung up somewhere and couldn't release its
lock on the table in question, and there were several other processes
waiting. It's possible that it was just a symptom of a larger problem
at the time. I didn't have time to do a thorough analysis (and the
problem state is lost now), and what was cause vs. effect is probably
immaterial at this point.
Peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Koczan | 2010-08-16 21:15:54 | Re: Is regular vacuuming with autovacuum needed? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2010-08-16 20:47:08 | Re: Is regular vacuuming with autovacuum needed? |