| From: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(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 22:32:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAL_0b1sdsyjpOv8b1jEQP2NTwMCzeHjCYKhByGQxgZROpyhj7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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.
--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
+1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-02-09 22:58:57 | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-02-09 19:48:18 | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |