| From: | Dima Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large table update/vacuum PLEASE HELP! |
| Date: | 2002-04-17 14:06:54 |
| Message-ID: | 3CBD817E.1040206@openratings.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>I wouldn't recommend a VACUUM FULL at all. Just do plain VACUUMs on
>a regular basis, and accept the 10% or so storage overhead.
>
>VACUUM FULL is good for the sort of situation where you've updated all
>or most of the rows at one time, and now you have a factor-of-2 storage
>overhead; you need to physically compact the table. But the price of
>doing that is high enough that I wouldn't do it to save 10-15%.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I am not worried about storage overhead at all at this point, but rather
about performance degradation when it
has to scan through all those dead tuples in the table and there are
LOTS of them :-(
Thanks!
Dima
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre-Alexis Paquin | 2002-04-17 15:15:35 | Re: Postgresql installation problem |
| Previous Message | Masaru Sugawara | 2002-04-17 13:53:51 | Re: Fw: views |