Re: Slow Vacuum was: vacuum output question

From: "Dan Armbrust" <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Slow Vacuum was: vacuum output question
Date: 2009-01-06 21:07:36
Message-ID: 82f04dc40901061307u6e0d3b6ep96119cd088dc7ecf@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Dan Armbrust escribió:
>
>> What on earth could be going on between PostgreSQL 8.1 and Fedora 6
>> that is bloating and/or corrupting the indexes like this?
>
> Postgres 8.1 was slow to vacuum btree indexes. My guess is that your
> indexes are so bloated that it takes a lot of time to scan them.
>
> I think the solution here is to vacuum this table far more often.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>

Actually, the customer reported problem is that when they enable
autovacuum, the performance basically tanks because vacuum runs so
slow they can't bear to have it run frequently.

Though, perhaps they had bloated indexes before they started
autovacuum, and it never fixed them. Perhaps it will behave properly
if we do a reindex, and then enable autovacuum.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Armbrust 2009-01-06 21:14:30 Re: Slow Vacuum was: vacuum output question
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2009-01-06 21:05:24 Re: Slow Vacuum was: vacuum output question