| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | S H <msq001(at)live(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum problem |
| Date: | 2013-05-14 15:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=064LZ-6LJrVXgnjAfe=Cvdq3H0L0fYM64VygpBWeU9Zg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM, S H <msq001(at)live(dot)com> wrote:
>> I wonder if you've got a bloated pg catalog then. Certainly sounds
>> like it's a possibility.
>> So other than vacuuming when you recreate this, is the server working
>> hard? What is vacuum vacuuming when this happens (pg_stat_activity
>> should show that)
>
> Does vacuum full is required to avoid bloating, i am running vacuum analyze
> regularly but not vacuum full.
Normally vacuum full is NOT required on a regular basis. However, if
you did something like creation 100M tables and then dropped them, or
did it one at a time real fast, you could outrun your autovacuum
daemons and get bloat in the pg catalog tables.
Just offering a possibility for why a connection might be taking a
long time. There's plenty of other possibilities I'm sure.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ioana Danes | 2013-05-14 15:29:29 | Re: Running out of memory on vacuum |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-05-14 15:22:24 | Re: postgres and xquery |