Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <andrew@dunslane.net>) id 1T26zm-0004qr-Fc
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:48:46 +0000
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <andrew@dunslane.net>) id 1T26zk-0006Rb-3g
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:48:45 +0000
X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.129
Received: from mfilter12-d.gandi.net (mfilter12-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.129])
	by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2D1A8076;
	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:48:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter12-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195])
	by mfilter12-d.gandi.net (mfilter12-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180])
	(amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id HL4MP6jW+8RU; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:48:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 98.27.54.176
Received: from [192.168.10.146] (cpe-098-027-054-176.nc.res.rr.com
	[98.27.54.176]) (Authenticated sender: adsend@dunslane.net)
	by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CBF3A807A;
	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:48:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <502D5C9D.4020502@dunslane.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:48:29 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anibal David Acosta <aa@devshock.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: best practice to avoid table bloat?
References: <009d01cd7bee$785b1380$69113a80$@devshock.com>
In-Reply-To: <009d01cd7bee$785b1380$69113a80$@devshock.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201208/113
X-Sequence-Number: 47651


On 08/16/2012 04:33 PM, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> if I have a table that daily at night is deleted about 8 millions of 
> rows (table maybe has 9 millions) is recommended to do a vacuum 
> analyze after delete completes or can I leave this job to autovacuum?
>
> This table is very active during the day but less active during night
>
> I think that the only only thing where Postgres is weak, is in this 
> area (table and index bloat).
>
> For some reason for the same amount of data every day postgres consume 
> a little more.
>
>


Check out pg_reorg.

cheers

andrew