X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC359FA65C for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41855-04 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from q1exch01.Q1LABS.INC (Q1EXCH01.Q1Labs.com [205.174.165.4]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50849F9CC1 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from q1exch02.Q1LABS.INC ([10.100.50.8]) by q1exch01.Q1LABS.INC with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:40 -0300 X-PMWin-Version: 2.5.0e, Antispam-Engine: 2.3.0.1, Antivirus-Engine: 2.34.3 thread-index: AcaVapOXFCjqkaxmS06DGn7pPSZMQw== Received: from [10.100.100.123] ([10.100.100.123]) by q1exch02.Q1LABS.INC with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:40 -0300 From: "jody brownell" To: "Jim C. Nasby" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Help tuning autovacuum - seeing lots of relationbloat Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:40:40 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: "Csaba Nagy" , "postgres performance list" References: <200606211052.43227.jody.brownell@q1labs.com> <200606211321.06253.jody.brownell@q1labs.com> <20060621193823.GI93655@pervasive.com> In-Reply-To: <20060621193823.GI93655@pervasive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200606211640.40605.jody.brownell@q1labs.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2006 19:40:40.0188 (UTC) FILETIME=[93975BC0:01C6956A] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/417 X-Sequence-Number: 19774 OK.... this was over a 12 - 16 hour period of not having anything done with it though right? I am assuming if autovacuum were active through out that period, we would be somewhat better off ...is that not accurate? On Wednesday 21 June 2006 16:38, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > 5