Re: Poor overall performance unless regular VACUUM FULL

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Wayne Conrad <wayne(at)databill(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poor overall performance unless regular VACUUM FULL
Date: 2009-07-15 04:52:27
Message-ID: dcc563d10907142152j6a3e288r89e3d731544a5099@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Wayne Conrad<wayne(at)databill(dot)com> wrote:
> Howdy.  Some months back, when advised on one of these lists that it
> should not be necessary to issue VACUUM FULL/REINDEX DATABASE, we quit
> this nightly "maintenance" practice.  We've been very happy to not
> have to do that, since it locked the database all night.  Since then,
> however, our database performance has decreased.  The decrease took a
> few weeks to become noticable; perhaps six weeks to become awful.
SNIP
> What options do I have for restoring performance other than VACUUM
> FULL/REINDEX DATABASE?

Just wondering, which pgsql version, and also, do you have autovacuum turned on?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Wilson 2009-07-15 04:53:56 Re: Poor overall performance unless regular VACUUM FULL
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2009-07-15 03:40:38 Re: Performance comparison between Postgres and Greenplum