Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Press Release

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 2003-10-30 01:02:02
Message-ID: 1067475721.8672.51.camel@jester (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
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.

> >PostgreSQL also won't be answering queries if I unplug the
> >machine it is on, toss it into the back of a plane and fly it to another
> >data centre.
> >
> O.k. this was a ridiculous analogy.

Not really.. I see to do the data centre move more often than a VACUUM
FULL.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jussi MikkolaDate: 2003-10-30 01:19:49
Subject: Re: Press Release and eRServer
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-10-30 00:58:05
Subject: Re: Press Release

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group