Re: database file size bloat - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Matthew Arnison
Subject Re: database file size bloat
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.21.0004141625220.4378-100000@suphys.physics.usyd.edu.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: database file size bloat  (Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>)
Responses Re: database file size bloat
List pgsql-general
the bloat is a big problem. i just checked it again, and the db has
balloooned to 20 megs again, with i think 2650 unused pages. this is after
vacuuming it last night. i guess we need to setup the vacuum script to run
every hour. i am worried about this locking out users during the
vacuuming, although i guess if it happens more often, it should take less
time.

meanwhile, as for upgrading, i think i'll try 6.5.3 first.

version 7 is still in beta. is it atleast as stable as 6.5.3? is it
atleast as fast as 6.5.3?

this is a live site allright.

thanks for your advice,
matthew.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Ed Loehr wrote:

> Matthew Arnison wrote:
> >
> > three times now this week (on two different servers) the raw database on
> > disk has ballooned in size, from about 10 megs to 50 megs in two cases,
> > and from about 10 megs to 250 megs in another case.
> >
> > a VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE; cleans it back down to the proper size, but
> > meanwhile all the queries take half a minute, instead of less than a
> > second. and our load average skyrockets.
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> I have no explanation for the bloat, but it is a well-known "postgresqlism"
> that you should consider running vacuum analyze at least nightly, possibly
> more frequently.  [I run it hourly.]
>
> Also, there are about 300 reasons to consider upgrading to 7.0, most having
> to do with bug fixes and performance improvements.  Unfortunately, there
> may be a few incompatibilities (particularly in some pl/pgsql
> incantations), so don't assume a seamless upgrade.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Loehr
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Snow
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresqlism & Vacuum?
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Character encodings...