From: | yves(at)mail2(dot)vlaanderen(dot)net |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Subject: | Postgresql database size problem |
Date: | 2001-03-16 11:44:04 |
Message-ID: | 20010316124404.A6787@asua2.vlaanderen.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:01:36AM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > You are not quite factually correct above, even given your definition of
> > > "bug". PostgreSQL does reuse deleted record space, but requires an
> > > explicit maintenance step to do this.
> > Could you tell us what that maintenance step is? dumping the db and restoring into a fresh one ? :/
>
> :) No, "VACUUM" is your friend for this. Look in the reference manual
> for details.
>
> - Thomas
I'm having this problem:
I have a database that is 3 megabyte in size (measured using pg_dump). When
i go to the corresponding data directory (eg du -h data/base/mydbase), it
seems the real disk usage is 135 megabyte! Doing a VACUUM doesn't really
change the disk usage.
Also query & updating speed increases when i dump all data and restore
it into a fresh new database.
I'm running postgresql-7.0.2-6 on a Debian potato.
-Yves
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vilson farias | 2001-03-16 11:57:35 | Re: Why my vacuum fails? |
Previous Message | Anand Raman | 2001-03-16 11:19:33 | Re: Why SELECT OWNER.TABLENAME.COLUMNNAME not working ? |