On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jordan Tomkinson <jordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> One last thing. You were doing vacuum fulls but NOT reindexing, right? >> >> I quote from the document at google docs: >> 13:50:00 vacuum full & analyze on all databases through pgadmin >> >> 1: Do you have evidence that regular autovacuum isn't keeping up? >> 2: If you have such evidence, and you have to vacuum full, vacuum full >> doesn't really shrink indexes all that well. >> >> For a heavily updated database, the 1, 2, 3 punch of autovacuum >> (adjusted properly!), the background writer (adjusted properly) >> smoothing things out, and the HOT updates reusing all that space >> autovacuum is constantly reclaiming, meaning you should be able to >> avoid routine vacuum fulls. It's made a huge difference in db >> maintenance for me. >> >> Still I do find myself in vacuum full territory once or twice a year >> (rogue update or something like that on a live database). If you do >> have to vacuum full then reindex. OR cluster on your favorite index. > > I have no evidence of autovacuum not working, the manual full was done for > purpose of elimination. Oh, ok. If you're trying to make a fair benchmark, you should probably reindex after vacuum full. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general