Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option
От | Claudio Freire |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGTBQpb=7VKhmRW=JKgsR-FhDRchd+HGm6e8DXqsNOR9=+7-Yw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option (Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bloated tables and why is vacuum full the only option
|
Список | 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.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: