From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |
Date: | 2014-02-09 22:58:57 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpb=7VKhmRW=JKgsR-FhDRchd+HGm6e8DXqsNOR9=+7-Yw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What I'm seeing, though, is not that, but bloat proportional to table
>> size (always stuck at about 65% bloat). What's weird, is that vacuum
>> full does the trick of reducing table size and bloat back to 0%. I
>> haven't had time yet to verify whether it goes back to 65% after
>> vacuum full (that will take time, maybe a month).
>
> Try pgcompact, it was designed particularily for such cases like yours
> https://github.com/grayhemp/pgtoolkit.
It's a pity that that requires several sequential scans of the tables.
For my case, that's probably as intrusive as the exclusive locks.
I noticed I didn't mention, but the tables involved are around 20-50GB in size.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2014-02-09 23:29:41 | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |
Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2014-02-09 22:32:18 | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |