From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Lapidus <clapidus(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-22 16:03:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0308221003370.16588-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:17:41 +0530,
> > Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> wrote:
> > >
> > > Idea of autovacuum is to reduce load on vacuum full. If you set
> shared_buffers
> > > higher and FSM properly for he update/delete load, autovacuum is
> expected to
> > > catch most of the dead tuples in shared cache only. If it is successful
> in
> > > doubling the frequency on vacuum full, that's a big win, isn't it?
> >
> > If you run a normal vacuum often enough, you shouldn't need to regularly
> > run vacuum full.
>
> Hmm, here we have a certain table, sort of FIFO, rows get inserted all the
> time, lay there for a couple of hours and get deleted "the other end
> around". We run normal vacuum almost constantly, but the table keeps
> growing. We had to implement a 'vacuum full' once a week to keep it under
> control.
You may just need to increase your fsm settings in postgresql.conf to get
a regular vacuum to work the way you want.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-08-22 16:06:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-08-22 16:02:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-08-22 16:06:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-08-22 16:02:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |