From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stefano Dal Pra <s(dot)dalpra(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stéphane Schildknecht <stephane(dot)schildknecht(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum goes worse |
Date: | 2007-10-17 16:07:42 |
Message-ID: | 20071017160742.GJ5737@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Stefano Dal Pra escribió:
> Your first post says vacuum goes worse (slower).
> I see that you do not issue the -f option (FULL VACUUM).
>
> I had a similar situation with a server (with frequent update)
> performing nightly vacuumdb. After a few many days it went
> slower and slower.
When you have that problem, the solution is to issue more plain vacuum
(not full) more frequently. If it's a highly updated table, then maybe
once per hour or more. It depends on the update rate.
> With psql 8.2.x we adopted pg_autovacuum which seems to perform good,
> even thought
> i do not clearly understand whether it occasionally performs a full
> vacuum (i think he does'nt).
It doesn't because it's normally not necessary. Also, we don't want to
be acquiring exclusive locks in a background automatic process, so if
you really need vacuum full (and I question your need to) then you must
issue it yourself.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Kratz | 2007-10-17 17:34:24 | Incorrect estimates on columns |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-17 15:56:14 | Re: Vacuum goes worse |