| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases |
| Date: | 2006-04-09 20:45:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20060409204555.GB16673@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Probably the indexes are bloated after the vacuum full. I think the
> > best way to get rid of the "fat" is to recreate both tables and indexes
> > anew. For this the best tool would be to CLUSTER the tables on some
> > index, probably the primary key. This will be much faster than
> > VACUUMing the tables, and the indexes will be much smaller as result.
>
> I guess you're right. I forgot to mention there are 12 composed indexes
> on the largest (and not deleted) table B, having about 14.000.000 rows
> and 1 GB of data. I'll try to dump/reload the database ...
Huh, I didn't suggest to dump/reload. I suggested CLUSTER. You need to
apply it only to tables where you have lots of dead tuples, which IIRC
are A, C and D.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2006-04-09 21:49:22 | Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2006-04-09 20:44:51 | Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases |