| From: | wsheldah(at)lexmark(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question |
| Date: | 2001-08-15 18:01:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200108151801.OAA20301@interlock2.lexmark.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
If there were lots of inserts, I would guess it would need to re-analyze the
tables to update its statistics on them, so the query optimizer can make good
choices.
--Wes
Philip Crotwell <crotwell%seis(dot)sc(dot)edu(at)interlock(dot)lexmark(dot)com> on 08/15/2001
01:08:19 PM
To: Joseph Shraibman <jks%selectacast(dot)net(at)interlock(dot)lexmark(dot)com>
cc: pgsql-general%postgresql(dot)org(at)interlock(dot)lexmark(dot)com (bcc: Wesley
Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question
Hi
Just did a vacuum, took almost 4 hours. The interesting thing about this
is that there are only two small tables that have updates, everything else
has been just inserts. I would have thought that a vacuum of a database
shouldn't take very long if there aren't alot of "deleted" rows.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wright | 2001-08-15 18:07:17 | viewing/restoring old rows |
| Previous Message | Philip Crotwell | 2001-08-15 17:08:19 | Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question |