On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:15:48AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> "Wayne Conrad" <wcon...@yagni.com> wrote: > > > "VACUUM FULL ANALYZE VERBOSE" on a "deadlocks" > > > "VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE" (without the "FULL") does not > > You do realize that FULL should not be part of normal maintenance, > right? It is sometimes useful to recover from table bloat when normal > maintenance fails. Although it is almost always much slower than > CLUSTER, it has the advantage of not requiring disk space for a second > copy of the table, but it requires a REINDEX afterward to correct the > index bloat it causes. If you are doing a good job of normal > maintenance, you never, ever should be running VACUUM FULL. > > None of the above means you haven't found a problem worth looking at > -- I'm not trying to comment on that; but unless you are in the middle > of recovery from abnormal bloat, you may be able to dodge the problem > by correcting your maintenance practices. > > -Kevin
Kevin, We started doing a routine VACUUM FULL ANALYZE on the advice of a friend after the database started getting slow over time. We did not realize that the FULL should never be done. We will change that to a VACUUM ANALYZE, without the full, and see how it goes. We discovered that an occasionally REINDEX was also required to keep things fast. We did not realize it was a direct result of the VACUUM FULL that the REINDEX was required. Thank you for your advice. We are, obviously, not DB guys--just programmers shoved into the role. We push the buttons and pull the levers until things appear to work, which is a poor substitute for actually understanding what we are doing. Best Regards, Wayne Conrad -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
