On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 8:35 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > >> First, while vacuum is usually preferred to vacuum full, in this case, I >> usually find that vacuum full clears up enough cruft to be worth it (not >> always, but especially if you are also having performance issues). >> > > > IIRC, vacuum full was pretty broken in 8.1, which the output the original > postered showed indicated they were running. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for routine maintenance. The problem I have run into is that sometimes folks don't vacuum db's and you find this out after 7 years of write-heavy workloads..... In this case, there aren't a lot of great options. In 8.1 a normal vacuum will usually lead to tons of bloat in this case because the FSM isn't big enough to accommodate all the free space which is a problem. So at that point, vacuum without the full option is pretty broken in 8.1 :-P I often find in those cases it is a choice between vacuum full and dumpall/initdb/reload/analyze..... It is better now that there is no maximum size for the free space map though. Best Wishes, Chris travers > > > -- > john r pierce 37N 122W > somewhere on the middle of the left coast > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-general<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general> > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more.shtml
