From: | "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "neilc(at)samurai(dot)com" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Size for vacuum_mem |
Date: | 2002-12-05 17:57:16 |
Message-ID: | 200212051754.gB5HsTo15202@mx2.drf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 5 Dec 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> For these, it would probably be faster to TRUNCATE the table and then
> load the new data, then ANALYZE.
I can't because those tables would not be usable during the load.
Right now I do delete/copy from within a transaction. If the loads are
still running while people start coming in the morning they can still do
work.
> > while other tables I delete/reload about 1/3 (ie
> > 7 Million records table I delete/copy 1.5 Million records).
>
> For these, you can try just using a plain VACUUM and seeing how
> effective that is at reclaiming space.
I am not too concerned with space reclamation. In theory if I don't do
vacuum fulls I may have some dead space, but it would get re-used daily.
My concern is the performance hit I would suffer with the table scans.
>If necessary, increase max_fsm_pages.
What is this setting for? To what number could I increase it to?
> You might also want to check and see if your indexes are growing in size
> (btree indexes on incrementally increasing values like timestamps can
> grow, even with VACUUM FULL); use REINDEX if that's the case.
Every once in a while I truncate the tables and re-load the whole set.
Probably about every couple of months.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ken Godee | 2002-12-05 17:59:56 | Newbee question "Types" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-05 17:36:31 | Re: passwords in pg_shadow (duplicate). |