| From: | Sven Willenberger <sven(at)dmv(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON |
| Date: | 2006-07-07 17:52:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1152294779.32676.20.camel@lanshark.dmv.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:41 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> > Doing a quick check reveals that the relation in question currently
> > consumes 186GB of space (which I highly suspect is largely bloat).
>
> Good lord.. .186 gig for a 300 million row table? Unless those are seriously
> large rows, you have a TON of bloat.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
Yes, that number came from the dbsize functions (in contrib) so I don't
know if that includes the associated indexes as well. The rows are
fairly large, yes, but not enough (IMO) to account for that size. It
will be interesting to see the final size after the vacuum full (which
is the method I have settled on to reclaim space this go round).
Sven
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2006-07-07 18:04:13 | Re: Long term database archival |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-07-07 17:41:25 | Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON |