Re: Database size Vs performance degradation

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
Date: 2008-08-01 11:03:08
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0808011200300.4250@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Andrzej Zawadzki wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong but if this "bulk insert and delete" process is cyclical then
> You don't need vacuum full.
> Released tuples will fill up again with fresh data next day - after regular
> vacuum.

Yes, a regular manual vacuum will prevent the table from growing more than
it needs to. However, a vacuum full is required to actually reduce the
size of the table from 7.5G to 2.7G if that hasn't been done on the
production system already.

Matthew

--
It's one of those irregular verbs - "I have an independent mind," "You are
an eccentric," "He is round the twist."
-- Bernard Woolly, Yes Prime Minister

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mathias Stjernström 2008-08-02 10:39:19 Re: Nls sorting in Postgresql-8.3.3
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2008-08-01 08:43:44 Re: [PERFORM] Nls sorting in Postgresql-8.3.3