Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T26lX-0004vm-OX for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:34:03 +0000 Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T26lU-0006DX-Ve for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:34:03 +0000 Received: by ggdk6 with SMTP id k6so3387403ggd.19 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language:x-gm-message-state; bh=dL/0vm+0OCyJCtMCIomoqYiJjfnHpANu8E35Wg3nMkA=; b=ig4ny/TgJ9aBNoq+Lz3QyXo7c3vClenztLk+RlFfAjEPTCTV9nfSNMG4/FddsOoLx1 J6OpqK8XE6QCanD+tdi30S+1ob7IzH1+g4e8aZZaGbHiJp5SJJ7qVa106vrxlifOKwH4 gS4EgvT5U8bpO5tm9RukUebenzcnkdovIoKKCQoxpqrZXk2xKEjrRo5YOt9MOVa3QYtB LBbKr0W1QX1O6fYJWvT5mNOSqCQWDmTMXo+ZRgZcQk6u/N9+O/ExRXaFJq1XDyxrrvWQ BK6kLj3TIR9agVaMK+tMaHsXFpbLBLqevDxhjAr84hQ9ORefpoMgVjnccDQPIeZENfvW bfNA== Received: by 10.236.182.228 with SMTP id o64mr3432265yhm.85.1345149239657; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AnibalVAIO ([190.128.222.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p21sm10220298yhj.11.2012.08.16.13.33.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Anibal David Acosta" To: Subject: best practice to avoid table bloat? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:33:56 -0400 Message-ID: <009d01cd7bee$785b1380$69113a80$@devshock.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD7BCC.F14A84F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac177hP5geRgxHOnRWuIfGH67fZMeg== Content-Language: es-py X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldXsgvHl71DjknEnM8DGZ2bG720oAABVNrxL8k3HEuyM2IHQXTnMPdzjn2H560CDAkCyd+ X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201208/112 X-Sequence-Number: 47650 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD7BCC.F14A84F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, if I have a table that daily at night is deleted about 8 millions of rows (table maybe has 9 millions) is recommended to do a vacuum analyze after delete completes or can I leave this job to autovacuum? This table is very active during the day but less active during night I think that the only only thing where Postgres is weak, is in this area (table and index bloat). For some reason for the same amount of data every day postgres consume a little more. Thanks! ------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD7BCC.F14A84F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, =

if I have a table that daily at = night is deleted about 8 millions of rows (table maybe has 9 millions) = is recommended to do a vacuum analyze after delete completes or can I = leave this job to autovacuum?

 

This table = is very active during the day but less active during = night

 

I think that the only only thing where Postgres is = weak, is in this area (table and index bloat).

 

For some = reason for the same amount of data every day postgres consume a little = more.

 

Thanks!

------=_NextPart_000_009E_01CD7BCC.F14A84F0--