| From: | Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org |
| Date: | 2003-03-18 02:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20030318023122.GN3703@vt.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I should have paid more attention to the disk space before... but it
looks like somewhere between half a gig and a gig was freed! The disk
footprint is about a gig now.
Aaron Krowne
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
> noticeably?
>
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Logan Bowers | 2003-03-18 02:41:07 | Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-18 01:34:36 | Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org |