Re: [HACKERS] Urgent Help Required

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2013 8:35 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> First, while vacuum is usually preferred to vacuum full, in this case, I
>> usually find that vacuum full clears up enough cruft to be worth it (not
>> always, but especially if you are also having performance issues).
>>
>
>
> IIRC, vacuum full was pretty broken in 8.1, which the output the original
> postered showed indicated they were running.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it for routine maintenance. The problem I
have run into is that sometimes folks don't vacuum db's and you find this
out after 7 years of write-heavy workloads..... In this case, there aren't
a lot of great options. In 8.1 a normal vacuum will usually lead to tons
of bloat in this case because the FSM isn't big enough to accommodate all
the free space which is a problem. So at that point, vacuum without the
full option is pretty broken in 8.1 :-P I often find in those cases it is
a choice between vacuum full and dumpall/initdb/reload/analyze..... It is
better now that there is no maximum size for the free space map though.

Best Wishes,
Chris travers

>
>
> --
> john r pierce 37N 122W
> somewhere on the middle of the left coast
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-general<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general>
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more.shtml