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

Re: postgresql meltdown on

From: Max Baker <max(at)warped(dot)org>
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
Date: 2003-03-17 18:33:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:37:32AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

I was having a similar problem a couple threads ago, and a VACUUM FULL
reduced my database from 3.9 gigs to 2.1 gigs !     

So my question is how to (smartly) choose an FSM size?


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2003-03-17 19:20:10
Subject: Re: postgresql meltdown on
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-03-17 17:38:38
Subject: Performance on large data transformations

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group