Hi Claudio, You mean running a VACUUM statement manually? I would basically try to avoid such a situation as the way I see it, the database should be configured in such a manner that it will be able to handle the load at any given moment and so I wouldn't want to manually intervene here. If you think differently, I'll be happy to stand corrected.
Thanks, Ofer -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Claudio Freire Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:31 PM To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Inserts or Updates On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ofer Israeli <of...@checkpoint.com> wrote: > Thanks Kevin for the ideas. Now that you have corrected our misconception > regarding the autovacuum not handling index bloating, we are looking into > running autovacuum frequently enough to make sure we don't have significant > increase in table size or index size. We intend to keep our transactions > short enough not to reach the situation where vacuum full or CLUSTER is > needed. Also, rather than going overboard with autovacuum settings, do make it more aggressive, but also set up a regular, manual vacuum of either the whole database or whatever tables you need to vacuum at known-low-load hours. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
