From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Time for Vacuum vs. Vacuum Full |
Date: | 2007-08-09 21:32:22 |
Message-ID: | 20070809213222.GA20424@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:22:57AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Brad Nicholson wrote:
>
> >I have the times that it takes to to do a regular
> >vacuum on the clusters, will vacuum full take longer?
>
> almost certainly it will, since it has to move data to compact pages
> rather than just tagging the rows as reusable.
>
> you can speed things up by dropping your indexes first, then running
> vacuum full, then re-creating your indexes. this will make for
> better (more compact) indexes too.
>
> as for how much longer, I don't know how to estimate that.
A generally easier approach would be to cluster the tables on an
appropriate index. That does re-write the table from scratch, but in
cases of bad bloat that can actually be a lot faster.
One thing you can do to test this out is to setup another copy of the
database using PITR or some other file-based copy mechanism and try
running VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER. Note that a copy obtained via pg_dump
obviously won't work for this. :)
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-09 21:36:50 | Re: Modified FIFO queue and insert rule |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-09 21:23:40 | Re: Sylph Searcher |