| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Mike Charnoky" <noky(at)nextbus(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: problems with large table |
| Date: | 2007-09-12 20:31:18 |
| Message-ID: | 3345.1189629078@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Apart from creating a new table, indexing it, then renaming it to
> original table -- is there an alternative to CLUSTER that doesn't
> impose a painful ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock on the table? We are on
> Postgres 8.2.3 and have a heavy duty table that starts showing its
> limits after a week or so. Autovacuum is on and working. FSM etc is
> fine, maintenance_work_mem is 256MB. But cluster still takes upwards
> of 30 minutes, which is unacceptable downtime for our web service.
> Thanks for any tips!
If you're seeing steady bloat then FSM isn't as fine as you think.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cultural Sublimation | 2007-09-12 20:39:44 | Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-09-12 20:23:11 | Re: problems with large table |