Re: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas F.O'Connell
Subject Re: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment
Date
Msg-id B1C3B072-DB70-11D8-9CB2-000D93AE0944@sitening.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fwd: Indexes and Tables: Growth and Treatment  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
List pgsql-general
On Jul 18, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:

> Regular vacuum will (almost) never return your table to it's minimum
> size.  I don't think it's unreasonable for a table that is 4MB after a
> vacuum full, to grow to 11MB, especially if it's a very active table.

That's good to know.

> The important question is does it keep growing?  Or does it reach a
> steady state size?  There is no point in reclaiming space via VACUUM
> FULL when that space will need to be reallocated shortly.

Things seem to be growing much more naturally now that we have more
robust FSM settings.

Thanks again for your help!

-tfo



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Oliver Elphick
Date:
Subject: Re: sorting and spaces in postgresql with en_US locale
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL - display different data