From: | Joao Ferreira gmail <joao(dot)miguel(dot)c(dot)ferreira(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: big database with very small dump !? |
Date: | 2008-08-12 11:00:40 |
Message-ID: | 1218538840.6460.25.camel@jmf-ubuntu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:58 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> It's likely you've got index bloat. If you reload a pg_dump of the
> database in question into another server how much space does that take
> up?
right. just loaded the dump into a clean database and everything came
down about 10 times...
----------------------------------------------
NOW: (injected dump into fresh Pg):
relation | size
----------------------------------+--------
public.timeslots | 549 MB
public.timeslots_strs_var_ts_key | 482 MB
public.timeslots_var_index | 59 MB
public.timeslots_timeslot_index | 37 MB
public.timeslots_timestamp_index | 37 MB
(5 rows)
------------------------------------------------
BEFORE:
relation | size
----------------------------------+---------
public.timeslots_strs_var_ts_key | 5643 MB
public.timeslots | 2660 MB
public.timeslots_timestamp_index | 583 MB
public.timeslots_var_index | 314 MB
public.timeslots_timeslot_index | 275 MB
I'm confused here....
on the fresh database the whole set only takes 1.3G
on the original db, even after VACUUM FULL and REINDEX it takes 9G.
can I really do anything about it ?
If I try cluster, I'm guessing I'll choose the big index and forget
about the smaller ones... is this right ?
thanks
joao
thx
> Look into using CLUSTER or REINDEX to fix the space usage.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joao Ferreira | 2008-08-12 11:49:04 | text .vs. varchar |
Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2008-08-12 11:00:05 | Re: big database with very small dump !? |