Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0742650509 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:52:37 -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 51711-01-9 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:52:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A7F6504F7 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:51:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6UHpnlF001241; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:51:49 -0400 (EDT) To: Mark Roberts cc: Matthew Wakeling , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation In-reply-to: <1217436578.6288.44.camel@localhost> 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> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Roberts message dated "Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:49:38 -0700" Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:51:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1240.1217440309@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane 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: 200807/254 X-Sequence-Number: 30854 Mark Roberts writes: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:16 +0100, Matthew Wakeling wrote: >> Anyway, surely it's much safer to just run VACUUM manually? > Generally, you would think so. The problem comes from Vacuum blocking > the application process' writes. Huh? Vacuum doesn't block writes. regards, tom lane