On 09/22/2014 10:21 PM, Joel Avni wrote:
Its version 9.3.5, whats interesting the that the table grew in size after
the vacuum full, which I did to try to see why the auto vacuum wasn¹t
working.
Please do not top post, it makes it difficult to follow the thread.
However, after I stopped the P
Its version 9.3.5, whats interesting the that the table grew in size after
the vacuum full, which I did to try to see why the auto vacuum wasn¹t
working.
However, after I stopped the PostgreSQL slave instance, then vacuum full
did result in a much much smaller size, as expected. So it appears to be
It 9.3.5 and I did the manual vacuum to try to see where the problem might
be.
On 9/22/14, 4:04 PM, "Adrian Klaver" wrote:
>On 09/22/2014 01:42 PM, Joel Avni wrote:
>> I noticed that tables on my master PostgreSQL server were growing, and
>> running vacuum full analyze on them actually made them
On 09/22/2014 01:42 PM, Joel Avni wrote:
I noticed that tables on my master PostgreSQL server were growing, and
running vacuum full analyze on them actually made them even bigger.
First what version of Postgres are you using?
Second VACUUM FULL is usually not recommended for the reason you fou
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Joey K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I inherited a 8.1.x database of size 200GB. This database hasn't been
> maintained much (autovac is enabled though).
>
> I been trying to VACUUM this db for the past few days for a couple of
> hours/day. The serv
Joey K. wrote:
>> Is it possible to estimate how long VACUUM on a table might take?
>
>> The table size is growing as "VACUUM" is being performed. I assume I need
> reindex after VACUUM is complete.
>
>> I run VACUUM from psql and I Ctrl-C it to turn it off is this acceptable?
>
>> maintenance_
