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
databaseshould be configured in such a manner that it will be able to handle the load at any given moment and so I
wouldn'twant to manually intervene here. If you think differently, I'll be happy to stand corrected.
Thanks,
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@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 <oferi@checkpoint.com> wrote:
> Thanks Kevin for the ideas. Now that you have corrected our misconception regarding the autovacuum not handling
indexbloating, we are looking into running autovacuum frequently enough to make sure we don't have significant increase
intable size or index size. We intend to keep our transactions short enough not to reach the situation where vacuum
fullor 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.
