On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:37:32AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu> writes:
> > So, either it is broken, or doing a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE rather than just
> > VACUUM ANALYZE made all the difference. Is this possible (the latter,
> > we know the former is possible...)?
> If your FSM parameters in postgresql.conf are too small, then plain
> vacuums might have failed to keep up with the available free space,
> leading to a situation where vacuum full is essential. Did you happen
> to notice whether the vacuum full shrunk the database's disk footprint
I was having a similar problem a couple threads ago, and a VACUUM FULL
reduced my database from 3.9 gigs to 2.1 gigs !
So my question is how to (smartly) choose an FSM size?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2003-03-17 19:20:10|
|Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2003-03-17 17:38:38|
|Subject: Performance on large data transformations|