X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C379A9DC88B for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:29:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87279-10 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:29:57 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.refusion.com (mail.refusion.com [213.144.155.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06F19DC849 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:29:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from iwing by mail.refusion.com (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.4.R) with ESMTP id md50000479465.msg for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:28:33 +0100 Message-ID: <071801c61b05$7ea50c10$6402a8c0@iwing> From: To: "Tom Lane" Cc: References: <43CC1938.7020807@gmail.com> <18875.1137451410@sss.pgh.pa.us> <070501c61aee$ed450560$6402a8c0@iwing> <22960.1137460135@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: new to postgres (and db management) and performance already a problem :-( Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:29:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 X-Authenticated-Sender: info@alternize.com X-Spam-Processed: mail.refusion.com, Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:28:33 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 80.238.235.198 X-Return-Path: me@alternize.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-ClamAV: Pass X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.72 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.703, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=2.872, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 2.72 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200601/214 X-Sequence-Number: 16692 >> in our db system (for a website), i notice performance boosts after a >> vacuum >> full. but then, a VACUUM FULL takes 50min+ during which the db is not >> really >> accessible to web-users. is there another way to perform maintenance >> tasks >> AND leaving the db fully operable and accessible? > > You're not doing regular vacuums often enough. well, shouldn't autovacuum take care of "regular" vacuums? in addition to autovacuum, tables with data changes are vacuumed and reindexed once a day - still performance seems to degrade slowly until a vacuum full is initiated... could an additional daily vacuum over the entire db (even on tables that only get data added, never changed or removed) help? - thomas