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

Re: postgresql meltdown on

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Aaron Krowne <akrowne(at)vt(dot)edu>
Cc: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on
Date: 2003-03-16 08:37:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
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

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2003-03-16 11:29:14
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on
Previous:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2003-03-16 08:35:37
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group