Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
Date: 2008-04-18 18:24:22
Message-ID: 20080418182422.GA11081@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jeffrey Baker escribió:

> That's rather more like it. I guess I always imagined that VACUUM was
> a sort of linear process, not random, and that it should proceed at
> sequential scan speeds.

It's linear for the table, but there are passes for indexes which are
random in 8.1. That code was rewritten by Heikki Linnakangas to do
linear passes for indexes in 8.2 AFAIR.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-04-18 19:09:08 Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2008-04-18 18:18:40 Re: Message queue table..