Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Date: 2004-11-04 00:21:59
Message-ID: 20041103202103.B82047@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Justin Clift wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Do a vacuum full analyze on the two databases being called, and load time
>>> went from 2.4sec to .46sec:
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm, is there any chance your Free Space Map settings aren't high enough?
>>
>
> I could be wrong but my understanding is that pg_autovacuum won't vacuum
> system tables so eventually you still need to perform a full vacuum (not
> neccessarily a vacuum full).
>
> Could this be the issue?

I just setup a weekly cron to do a vacuum full ... I didn't realize that
pg_autovacuum didn't catch it all, except, of course, I should have clued
in when we had that fun with the banner database, where an index on a 12
row table was faster then no index :)

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hicham G. Elmongui 2004-11-04 00:50:25 modifying a TupleTableSlot
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2004-11-04 00:21:27 Re: [HACKERS] Possible make_oidjoins_check Security Issue

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-11-04 00:28:45 Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-11-04 00:20:47 Re: pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...