Hi Andreas,
>I would suggest run only autovacuum, and with time you will see a not
>more growing table. There is no need for vacuum full.
So new record, when will be pg_bulkloaded, will replace "marked-free" location?
Thank you!
Francesco
________________________________________
Da: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] per conto di Andreas Kretschmer
[andreas@a-kretschmer.de]
Inviato: lunedì 20 giugno 2016 11.37
A: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum full: alternatives?
Am 20.06.2016 um 11:18 schrieb Job:
> Hello,
>
> we have a table with an heavy traffic of pg_bulkload and delete of records.
> The size pass, in only one day, for example for 1Gb to 4Gb and then 1Gb back.
>
> We have important problems on size and the only way to gain free space is issueing a vacuum full <table>.
> But the operation is very slow, sometimes 2/4 hours, and table is not available for services as it is locked.
>
> We do not delete everything at one (in this case the truncate woudl resolve the problem).
>
> The autovacuum is not able (same for normal vacuum) to free the spaces.
>
autovaccum marks space as free, but don't give the space back to os.
I would suggest run only autovacuum, and with time you will see a not
more growing table. There is no need for vacuum full.
Andreas
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
