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

Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Hamill <gdh(at)laterooms(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes
Date: 2006-10-26 14:47:21
Message-ID: 20196.1161874041@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Gavin Hamill <gdh(at)laterooms(dot)com> writes:
> Nodes 2 and 3 take only the tables necessary to run our search (10 out
> of the full 130) and are much lighter (only 7GB on disk cf. 30GB for
> the full master) , yet the nightly VACUUM FULL has jumped from 2 hours
> to 4 in the space of one day!

I guess the most useful question to ask is "why are you doing VACUUM FULL?"
Plain VACUUM should be considerably faster, and for the level of row
turnover shown by your log, there doesn't seem to be a reason to use FULL.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Carlo StonebanksDate: 2006-10-26 14:48:00
Subject: Re: commit so slow program looks frozen
Previous:From: Carlo StonebanksDate: 2006-10-26 14:43:50
Subject: Re: commit so slow program looks frozen

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