Re: degenerate performance on one server of 3

it was all vacuum full...thanks

the other 2 servers truncate and reload that table from time to time
... IE: they are always vacuumed

as the "master" ... that server never does it... hence the bloat

but why wasn't autovac enough to reclaim at least *most* of the space?
that table *does* get updated every day... but rows are not
overwritten, just edited. it seems that most of the pages should be
"reused" via autovac ....

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm betting on varying degrees of table bloat.  Have you tried vacuum
>>> full, cluster, etc?
>
>> Or, if you have been using VACUUM FULL, try REINDEXing the tables,
>> because it could easily be index bloat. Clustering the table will take
>> care of index bloat as well as table bloat.
>
> Index bloat wouldn't explain the slow-seqscan behavior the OP was
> complaining of.  Still, you're right that if the tables are bloated
> then their indexes probably are too ... and that VACUUM FULL alone
> will not fix that.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>