Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC6E9FB30D for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:47:46 -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 96143-06 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:47:28 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC739FA318 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:47:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9QElLWh020197; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:47:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Gavin Hamill cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes In-reply-to: <20061026095827.9e85e1c0.gdh@laterooms.com> References: <20061026095827.9e85e1c0.gdh@laterooms.com> Comments: In-reply-to Gavin Hamill message dated "Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:58:27 +0100" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:47:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20196.1161874041@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.127 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/548 X-Sequence-Number: 21677 Gavin Hamill 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