X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A419DD61E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:49:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90577-04 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:49:13 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from unicorn.rentec.com (unicorn.rentec.com [216.223.240.9]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169549DD624 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:49:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from wren.rentec.com (wren.rentec.com [192.5.35.106]) by unicorn.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jB6Km3hb005160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:48:04 -0500 (EST) X-Source: non-mednet Received: from [172.26.132.145] (hoopoe.rentec.com [172.26.132.145]) by wren.rentec.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id jB6KmCtB016764; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:48:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4395F914.8070001@rentec.com> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:48:20 -0500 From: Alan Stange Reply-To: stange@rentec.com Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Khera CC: Postgresql Performance Subject: Re: postgresql performance tuning References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Logged: Logged by unicorn.rentec.com as jB6Km3hb005160 at Tue Dec 6 15:48:04 2005 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/192 X-Sequence-Number: 16013 Vivek Khera wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Ameet Kini wrote: > >> need for vacuums. However, it'd be great if there was a similar >> automatic >> reindex utility, like say, a pg_autoreindex daemon. Are there any plans >> for this feature? If not, then would cron scripts be the next best > > what evidence do you have that you are suffering index bloat? or are > you just looking for solutions to problems that don't exist as an > academic exercise? :-) The files for the two indices on a single table used 7.8GB of space before a reindex, and 4.4GB after. The table had been reindexed over the weekend and a vacuum was completed on the table about 2 hours ago. The two indices are now 3.4GB smaller. I don't think this counts as bloat, because of our use case. Even so, we reindex our whole database every weekend. -- Alan