| From: | Thomas F(dot)O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment |
| Date: | 2004-07-21 23:50:07 |
| Message-ID: | B1C3B072-DB70-11D8-9CB2-000D93AE0944@sitening.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jul 18, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Regular vacuum will (almost) never return your table to it's minimum
> size. I don't think it's unreasonable for a table that is 4MB after a
> vacuum full, to grow to 11MB, especially if it's a very active table.
That's good to know.
> The important question is does it keep growing? Or does it reach a
> steady state size? There is no point in reclaiming space via VACUUM
> FULL when that space will need to be reallocated shortly.
Things seem to be growing much more naturally now that we have more
robust FSM settings.
Thanks again for your help!
-tfo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-22 00:08:34 | Re: SQL - display different data |
| Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2004-07-21 21:26:10 | Re: sorting and spaces in postgresql with en_US locale |