Christopher Browne wrote:
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I do a graph about my disk usage and it's a ramp since one week,
I'll continue to wait in order to see if it will decrease.
I was expecting the steady state at something like 4 GB
( after a full vacuum and reindex ) + 10 % = 4.4 GB
I'm at 4.6 GB and increasing. I'll see how it will continue.
You probably want for the "experiment" to last more than a week.
After all, it might actually be that with your usage patterns, that table would stabilize at 15% "overhead," and that might take a couple or three weeks.
Unless it's clear that it's growing perilously quickly, just leave it alone so that there's actually some possibility of reaching an equilibrium. Any time you "VACUUM FULL" it, that _destroys_ any experimental results or any noticeable patterns, and it guarantees that you'll see "seemingly perilous growth" for a while.
And if the table is _TRULY_ growing "perilously quickly," then it is likely that you should add in some scheduled vacuums on the table. Not VACUUM FULLs; just plain VACUUMs.
I revised cron scripts yet again today to do hourly and "4x/day"
vacuums of certain tables in some of our systems where we know they
need the attention. I didn't schedule any VACUUM FULLs; it's
unnecessary, and would lead directly to system outages, which is
totally unacceptable.
Chris, is this in addition to pg_autovacuum? Or do you not use pg_autovacuum at all?, and if so why not?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
