Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table?
Date: 2003-02-20 03:37:45
Message-ID: 16814.1045712265@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> You could do the jump-back-in-blocks only if more than 30% of the table is
> empty and table is over 1GB. For the example here, a simple defragging
> algorithm would suffice; start at beginning and pack each tuple into the
> beginning of the file. It will move *every* tuple but it's more cache
> friendly. It's pretty extreme though.

And your evidence that it will actually be faster is ... ?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-20 03:59:46 Re: Should this scare me?
Previous Message Christopher Browne 2003-02-20 03:32:18 Re: Table Partitioning in Postgres: