Thanks for the help everyone and sorry for not replying sooner, I was on
a business trip.
@Hubert pg_reorg looks really interesting and from the first read it looks
to be a very good solution for maintenance, but for now I would rather try
to slow down, or remove this bloat, so I have to do as less maintenance as
@Mark So basically I should decrease the autovacuum nap time from 60s to
10s, reduce the scale factor from 0.2 to 0.1. log_autovacuum_min_duration is
already set to 0, which means everything is logged.
@Jeff I'm not sure if I understand what you mean? I know that we never
reuse key ranges. Could you be more clear, or give an example please.
Thanks in advance,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Strahinja Kustudić
> <strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com> wrote:
> > For example, yesterday when I checked the database size on the production
> > server it was 30GB, and the restored dump of that database was only 17GB.
> > The most interesting thing is that the data wasn't bloated that much, but
> > the indices were. Some of them were a few times bigger than they should
> > For example an index on the production db is 440MB, while that same index
> > after dump/restore is 17MB, and there are many indices with that high
> > difference.
> Could your pattern of deletions be leaving sparsely populated, but not
> completely empty, index pages; which your insertions will then never
> reuse because they never again insert values in that key range?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Anibal David Acosta||Date: 2012-08-16 20:33:56|
|Subject: best practice to avoid table bloat?|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2012-08-16 16:39:40|
|Subject: Re: Increasing WAL usage followed by sudden drop|