From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:47:21 -0400
Message-ID: <20196.1161874041@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061026095827.9e85e1c0.gdh@laterooms.com>
References: <20061026095827.9e85e1c0.gdh@laterooms.com>
Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com> writes:
> Nodes 2 and 3 take only the tables necessary to run our search (10 out
> of the full 130) and are much lighter (only 7GB on disk cf. 30GB for
> the full master) , yet the nightly VACUUM FULL has jumped from 2 hours
> to 4 in the space of one day!
I guess the most useful question to ask is "why are you doing VACUUM FULL?"
Plain VACUUM should be considerably faster, and for the level of row
turnover shown by your log, there doesn't seem to be a reason to use FULL.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gdh@laterooms.com
Subject: Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes
In-Reply-To: <20196.1161874041@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox