| From: | "Eric B(dot) Ridge" <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL takes long time to complete |
| Date: | 2007-04-02 20:16:47 |
| Message-ID: | 5C15F116-39A1-483A-8CEF-B34DAF193425@tcdi.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 31, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Firstly, with autovacuum you really don't need to be running VACUUM
> FULL anyway. VACUUM FULL is actually quite inefficient, you're better
> off having higher FSM settings and leaving it to autovacuum.
Thank you (and Bill Moran) for the response. The reason we run
VACUUM FULL daily, I think, is just a hangover from the times when
Postgres didn't have autovacuum in core. And I think using FULL in
particular was from a desire to keep the database as trim as possible.
We'll flip our automated process off and see how things go. Maybe
implement a monthly CLUSTER and/or REINDEX on the largest tables to
help keep their sizes in check.
Thanks again!
eric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenji Morishige | 2007-04-02 20:31:02 | best way to calculate accumulating intervals timestamps |
| Previous Message | Andrus | 2007-04-02 19:32:53 | Re: Using C# to create stored procedures |