Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Claudio Freire
Subject Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option
Date
Msg-id CAGTBQpb=7VKhmRW=JKgsR-FhDRchd+HGm6e8DXqsNOR9=+7-Yw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option  (Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option  (Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I'm seeing, though, is not that, but bloat proportional to table
>> size (always stuck at about 65% bloat). What's weird, is that vacuum
>> full does the trick of reducing table size and bloat back to 0%. I
>> haven't had time yet to verify whether it goes back to 65% after
>> vacuum full (that will take time, maybe a month).
>
> Try pgcompact, it was designed particularily for such cases like yours
> https://github.com/grayhemp/pgtoolkit.

It's a pity that that requires several sequential scans of the tables.
For my case, that's probably as intrusive as the exclusive locks.

I noticed I didn't mention, but the tables involved are around 20-50GB in size.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Sergey Konoplev
Date:
Subject: Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option
Next
From: Sergey Konoplev
Date:
Subject: Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option