Re: [GENERAL] Buglist

[Jan Wieck]

Claudio Lapidus wrote:

Bruno Wolff III wote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:17:41 +0530,
  Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Idea of autovacuum is to reduce load on vacuum full. If you set
shared_buffers
> higher and FSM properly for he update/delete load, autovacuum is
expected to
> catch most of the dead tuples in shared cache only. If it is successful
in
> doubling the frequency on vacuum full, that's a big win, isn't it?

If you run a normal vacuum often enough, you shouldn't need to regularly
run vacuum full.
Hmm, here we have a certain table, sort of FIFO, rows get inserted all the
time, lay there for a couple of hours and get deleted "the other end
around". We run normal vacuum almost constantly, but the table keeps
growing. We had to implement a 'vacuum full' once a week to keep it under
control.
What is the size of your database, how many tables do you have and what 
are your FSM settings?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
              http://archives.postgresql.org