Message-ID: <4891FB28.7000800@wp.pl>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:49:28 +0200
From: Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@wp.pl>
Organization: Dom Finansowy QS Sp. z o.o. - Biuro Informatyki
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
References: 
 <35FABCF85D99464FB00BC5123DC2A70A051D0FB8@s228130hz1ew09.apptix-01.savvis.net>	
	<276541.4189.qm@web25805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>	
	<35FABCF85D99464FB00BC5123DC2A70A051D11E1@s228130hz1ew09.apptix-01.savvis.net>	
	<48908988.7020204@emolecules.com>	
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0807301656020.4250@aragorn.flymine.org>	
	<1217436578.6288.44.camel@localhost>
	<1240.1217440309@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1217441061.6288.47.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1217441061.6288.47.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>   
>> Huh?  Vacuum doesn't block writes.
>>
>>                         regards, tom lane
>>
>>     
>
> Of course, you are correct.  I was thinking of Vacuum full, which is
> recommended for use when you're deleting the majority of rows in a
> table.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-vacuum.html
>   
Maybe I'm wrong but if this "bulk insert and delete" process is cyclical 
then You don't need vacuum full.
Released tuples will fill up again with fresh data next day - after 
regular vacuum.

I have such situation at work. Size of database on disk is 60GB and is 
stable.

-- 
Andrzej Zawadzki