From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Press Release |
Date: | 2003-10-30 14:44:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310300741500.23153-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 19:57, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >Why are you running a vacuum full -- forgot to do a regular vacuum often
> > >enough?
> > >
> > No because if we don't run a vacuum full on this (actually a couple of)
> > machine
> > then the machine slows down to a crawl over time. Vacuums are run every
> > 4 or 5 hours
> > and a vacuum full every night.
> >
> > I am obviously missing something and relying on past knowledge.
>
> Yup.. Sounds like fsm is too low. Bump it up an order of magnitude and
> vacuum hourly instead -- drop the FULL.
I'd actually highly recommend the autovacuum daemon with moderately
aggressive settings, i.e. have it come on and check every 5 or 10 minutes.
On a table that's being updated many times a second, the needs for
vacuuming can be very frequent. let the autovacuum daemon do it. You can
schedule in mandatory plain vacuum s every couple of hours to make sure
they happen if you're paranoide, but honestly, while the autovacuum daemon
may technically be beta, it seems to be working for an awful lot of
people with heavily updated sites.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-10-30 18:07:43 | Re: PostgreSQL Certification |
Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2003-10-30 10:39:07 | Re: PostgreSQL Certification |