Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E115E650207 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:04:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60807-09 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:04:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s402.sureserver.com (s402.sureserver.com [216.35.197.71]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539316501EE for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:04:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 18469 invoked by uid 504); 30 Jul 2008 18:04:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?97.0.177.44?) (mailing?lists@70.102.219.22) by ns1.s402.sureserver.com with ESMTPA; 30 Jul 2008 18:04:10 -0000 Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation From: Mark Roberts To: Tom Lane Cc: Matthew Wakeling , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1240.1217440309@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <35FABCF85D99464FB00BC5123DC2A70A051D0FB8@s228130hz1ew09.apptix-01.savvis.net> <276541.4189.qm@web25805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <35FABCF85D99464FB00BC5123DC2A70A051D11E1@s228130hz1ew09.apptix-01.savvis.net> <48908988.7020204@emolecules.com> <1217436578.6288.44.camel@localhost> <1240.1217440309@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:04:21 -0700 Message-Id: <1217441061.6288.47.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/256 X-Sequence-Number: 30856 On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Huh? Vacuum doesn't block writes. > > regards, tom lane > Of course, you are correct. I was thinking of Vacuum full, which is recommended for use when you're deleting the majority of rows in a table. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-vacuum.html -Mark