From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Scott Whitney <swhitney@journyx.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovac vs manual with analyze
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:35:43 -0300
Message-ID: <20100315223543.GH3323@alvh.no-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <896915.170461268681046161.JavaMail.root@zimbra.int.journyx.com>
References: <18735708.169861268677235843.JavaMail.root@zimbra.int.journyx.com>
<896915.170461268681046161.JavaMail.root@zimbra.int.journyx.com>
Scott Whitney wrote:
> So, my questions are:
>
> a) Is the manual vacuum needed for performance reasons, or is auto-vac sufficient?
> b) How do my settings look?
> c) Is there a way that the clogs get cleared via autovac, would a full vac of just template1/template0 (if that last is possible) do it?
>
Autovacuum should be sufficient, provided that the FSM settings are
large enough to hold 20% (plus a bit of slack) of your database total
size in dead tuples. If they are not, your database starts to bloat and
you need ugly hacks like vacuum full to recover the dead space.
In 8.1, clog is only cleared by database-wide vacuums, which IIRC
autovac doesn't do unless it does a for-Xid-wraparound run, which is not
often. Probably a weekly database-wide vacuum (not full, i.e. vacuumdb
without -f) is enough.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@commandprompt.com, swhitney@journyx.com
Subject: Re: Autovac vs manual with analyze
In-Reply-To: <20100315223543.GH3323@alvh.no-ip.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox