Re: Recommendation to run vacuum FULL in parallel

From: Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>
To: rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recommendation to run vacuum FULL in parallel
Date: 2019-04-03 14:40:24
Message-ID: CAHOFxGqzLdRc+0dNp9q6q2oBCYUiQCmzYm8ma3Cng5m1+1tnZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Sometimes a table's usage pattern involves much more updates than
inserts, which gradually uses more and more unused space that is never
used again by postgres, and plain autovacuuming doesn't return it to the
OS."

Can you expound on that? I thought that was exactly what autovacuum did for
old versions of rows whether dead because of delete or update, so I am
surprised by this statement. I thought vacuum full was only ever needed if
storage space is an issue and the table is not expect to quickly re-expand
to current size on disk from new churn of tuples.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lou Tseng 2019-04-03 14:41:32 Re: Seeded Replication
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2019-04-03 14:35:13 Re: Move vs. copy table between databases that share a tablespace?