From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shane hill <shill(at)adobe(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: design question: general db performance |
Date: | 2003-11-25 19:27:39 |
Message-ID: | 200311251927.39671.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 18:42, shane hill wrote:
>
> Our db is getting to be a respectable size (about 10GB right now) and is
> growing slower and slower. I have been charged with making it faster and
> with a smaller footprint while retaining all of the current
> functionality. here is one of my ideas. Please tell me if I am crazy:
Your idea of using an integer makes sense - that's how it is stored on unix
anyway.
Are you familiar with VACUUM/VACUUM FULL/REINDEX and when you should use them?
If not, that's a good place to start. Try a VACUUM FULL on frequently updated
tables and see if that reduces your disk size.
You'll probably want to check the performance notes too:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Torsten Schulz | 2003-11-25 19:39:05 | [Fwd: Re: Optimize] |
Previous Message | Jeff | 2003-11-25 19:23:18 | Re: design question: general db performance |