Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8559F9C85
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:46:13 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 13290-09 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:46:05 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F229F9BCB
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:46:06 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [172.25.129.161] [38.96.172.125] by janestcapital.com with
 ESMTP
	(SMTPD-9.10) id A2130314; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <46E833E9.3020001@janestcapital.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:46:01 -0400
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
References: <46E636CB.8080008@rentalia.com>	
	<43393.192.121.104.48.1189495883.squirrel@zigo.dhs.org>	
	<46E64891.9080005@rentalia.com>
	<20070911225242.GG38801@decibel.org>	 <46E79865.906@rentalia.com>
	<dcc563d10709121128o1e5883a9n96b1f9ed74901be9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10709121128o1e5883a9n96b1f9ed74901be9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.236 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.709,
	BAYES_40=-0.185, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200709/227
X-Sequence-Number: 26772

Scott Marlowe wrote:

>I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs.  I
>think a rewrite from the ground up might be best...  I keep seeing
>people doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it's as much
>because of the way the docs represent vacuum full as anything.  Is
>that true for you?
>
>  
>

It's true for me.

I turned off autovacuum as I was getting occassional hangs, which I 
thought were the result of vacuums (and have signifigantly decreased 
since I did that), and went nightly vacuum fulls, and vacuum 
full/reindex/cluster on the weekends (which I now realize is redundant).

Brian