On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Also, when you're running the weekly VACUUM, do VACUUM (VERBOSE) and
> post it here. That might at least help us eliminate some of the usual
> suspects.
I have the full dump if relevant. The relevant extract for:
Report:
1. public.full_bid
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello list.
>>
>> I know all the theory about vacuuming. I've got log tables that get
>> periodically pruned. The pruning is... quirky, though. It's not so
>> much deleting data, as
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Hello list.
>
> I know all the theory about vacuuming. I've got log tables that get
> periodically pruned. The pruning is... quirky, though. It's not so
> much deleting data, as summarizing many (thousands) of rows into one
> single row. For
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
>> Try pgcompact, it was designed particularily for such cases like yours
>> https://github.com/grayhemp/pgtoolkit.
>
> It's a pity that that requires several sequential scans of the tab
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Sergey Konoplev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire
> wrote:
>> What I'm seeing, though, is not that, but bloat proportional to table
>> size (always stuck at about 65% bloat). What's weird, is that vacuum
>> full does the trick of reducing ta
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> What I'm seeing, though, is not that, but bloat proportional to table
> size (always stuck at about 65% bloat). What's weird, is that vacuum
> full does the trick of reducing table size and bloat back to 0%. I
> haven't had time yet to verif
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Claudio Freire writes:
I also do routine reindexing to stop index bloat on its tracks, yet
freshly-reindexed indexes get considerably reduced in size with vacuum
full.
>
> AFAIK there's no reason for vacuum full to produce a differe
Claudio Freire writes:
>>> I also do routine reindexing to stop index bloat on its tracks, yet
>>> freshly-reindexed indexes get considerably reduced in size with vacuum
>>> full.
AFAIK there's no reason for vacuum full to produce a different result
from reindex. Did you mean to say that the ind
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 7.2.2014 19:47, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>
>> Question is... why isn't all that free space being used? The table
>> grows in size even though there's plenty (65%) of free space.
>>
>> I've got autovacuum severely crippled and that could be a
On 7.2.2014 19:47, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
> Question is... why isn't all that free space being used? The table
> grows in size even though there's plenty (65%) of free space.
>
> I've got autovacuum severely crippled and that could be a reason, but
> I do perform regular vacuum runs weekly that a
Hello list.
I know all the theory about vacuuming. I've got log tables that get
periodically pruned. The pruning is... quirky, though. It's not so
much deleting data, as summarizing many (thousands) of rows into one
single row. For that, a combination of deletes and updates are used.
In essence,
11 matches
Mail list logo
