Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
Date: 2007-09-24 15:34:16
Message-ID: 1190648056.4661.251.camel@PCD12478
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:14 +0200, Gábor Farkas wrote:
> will i achieve the same thing by simply dropping that table and
> re-creating it?

If you have an index/PK on that table, the fastest and most useful way
to rebuild it is to do CLUSTER on that index. That will be a lot faster
than VACUUM FULL and it will also order your table in index order... but
it will also lock it in exclusive mode just as VACUUM FULL would do it.
If your table has just a few live rows and lots of junk in it, CLUSTER
should be fast enough. With 20K entries I would expect it to be fast
enough not to be a problem...

Cheers,
Csaba.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Dutcher 2007-09-24 15:37:42 Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
Previous Message Alexander Staubo 2007-09-24 15:29:48 Re: TEXT or LONGTEXT?