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

Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu>,Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Date: 2003-03-17 15:58:39
Message-ID: 87hea2assw.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> 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?

This seems to be a frequent problem. 

Is there any easy way to check an existing table for lost free space?

Is there any way vauum could do this check and print a warning suggesting
using vaccuum full and/or increasing fsm parameters if it finds such?

--
greg


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-03-17 16:11:05
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-03-17 06:34:20
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on PlanetMath.org

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