| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replication Syatem |
| Date: | 2008-04-29 05:47:05 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0804282247x35c0b796v80e77206c3b40489@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Gauri Kanekar
<meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But unless we do full vacuum the space is not recovered. Thats y we prefer
> full vacuum.
There is no point in recovering the space by moving tuples and
truncating the relation (that's what VACUUM FULL does) because you are
doing frequent updates on the table and that would again extend the
relation. If you run plain VACUUM, that would recover dead space and
update the free space maps. It may not be able to reduce the table
size, but you should not be bothered much about it because the
following updates/inserts will fill in the fragmented free space.
You may want to check your FSM settings as well to make sure that you
are tracking free space properly.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-04-29 05:55:27 | Re: Replication Syatem |
| Previous Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-04-29 05:46:57 | Re: Replication Syatem |