| From: | Guido Neitzer <lists(at)event-s(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brian Modra <epailty(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum taking an age |
| Date: | 2008-01-04 02:33:21 |
| Message-ID: | BF47E794-F83E-4EE0-A087-9877BCEF8608@event-s.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 03.01.2008, at 05:48, Brian Modra wrote:
> I have a pretty "live" table: rows being inserted and updated more
> than once 1 per second, though far, far more inserts than updates.
Not that busy ;-)
> It has not been vacuumed for months.
Not good.
> Now a vacuum on that table takes hours, and I have not let it complete
> because it stays running into our daily busy time... but I've been
> told its necessary because the table is slowing down.
>
> I have begun a cron job which will do a daily analyze, and am thinking
> of a weekly vacuum...
> Please advise on the best way to keep this table maintained, even if
> it means regularly taking the service offline early on Sunday
> morning...
Two things you can consider:
1. Cluster the table with one of the indexes. This will be really
fast, but is not transaction-safe as far as I remember for 8.2.x.
2. Use autovaccum to vacuum / analyze your database all the time. That
will keep the size small and the stats up to date.
cug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Modra | 2008-01-04 04:55:13 | Re: Vacuum taking an age |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-01-04 02:31:13 | Re: Vacuum taking an age |