From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Urgent Help Required |
Date: | 2013-10-10 07:27:25 |
Message-ID: | CAKt_ZfsAsdccgHzU=PW0Oz_hA3J+i95c2oj1dZsq-ScREyYj7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 8:35 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> First, while vacuum is usually preferred to vacuum full, in this case, I
>> usually find that vacuum full clears up enough cruft to be worth it (not
>> always, but especially if you are also having performance issues).
>>
>
>
> IIRC, vacuum full was pretty broken in 8.1, which the output the original
> postered showed indicated they were running.
I certainly wouldn't recommend it for routine maintenance. The problem I
have run into is that sometimes folks don't vacuum db's and you find this
out after 7 years of write-heavy workloads..... In this case, there aren't
a lot of great options. In 8.1 a normal vacuum will usually lead to tons
of bloat in this case because the FSM isn't big enough to accommodate all
the free space which is a problem. So at that point, vacuum without the
full option is pretty broken in 8.1 :-P I often find in those cases it is
a choice between vacuum full and dumpall/initdb/reload/analyze..... It is
better now that there is no maximum size for the free space map though.
Best Wishes,
Chris travers
>
>
> --
> john r pierce 37N 122W
> somewhere on the middle of the left coast
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-general<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general>
>
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more.shtml
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesse Long | 2013-10-10 07:48:11 | Re: Incorrect index being used |
Previous Message | Kaare Rasmussen | 2013-10-10 06:00:56 | Re: Tree structure |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-10 07:38:55 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-10 06:52:52 | Re: PSQL return coder |