The Wednesday 12 May 2010 14:28:39, Martin Simmons wrote : > >>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:19:39 +0200, Marc Cousin said: > > The Tuesday 11 May 2010 20:23:18, Martin Simmons wrote : > > > 3) Apart from bloat (solved by reindex + vacuum), the old setup had > > > been > > > > > > working flawlessly for a long time. It seemed unlikely that the > > > bugs in old PostgreSQL would suddenly start to cause major > > > problems. > > > > Ok, so I guess the database isn't that big anyway, if you can use vacuum > > full on it (by the way, you do vacuum full THEN reindex, do you ? > > because it's written in the other order). > > I was reindexing before doing vacuum full analyse. That may not have been > optimal but it certainly prevented the continual growth of the data > directory. > > __Martin Ok. Vacuuming full bloats the indexes (the indexes are maintained while the rows are shuffled in the table). It's (much) better to reindex AFTER vacuuming full.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
