Re: Commercial postgresql

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Commercial postgresql
Date: 2003-09-02 14:28:27
Message-ID: 3F54F663.26461.12686AE@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 2 Sep 2003 at 10:19, Vivek Khera wrote:

> >>>>> "SD" == Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
>
> >> second largest table, and 5 per index on the third largest, then about
> >> 90 seconds total for the rest of the tables ;-)
>
> SD> Umm.. Since you have only 2.7GB of data, all inclusive, would it
> SD> be real downtime if you reindex in a transaction, assuming the
> SD> "downtime" was not due to crunch of IO bandwidth..
>
> Reindexing a table takes an exclusive table lock. If I did it inside
> a transaction, wouldn't it still take that lock and block out all
> other access?

Well, you donm't need to reindex as such. You can create a new index from
scratch and drop the old one inside a transaction.

That will be perfectly non-blocking I believe..

> I just did one index at a time, waited a few minutes did the next for
> my big tables, than just reindexed the others all in a row. Last time
> I did this must have been 9 or 10 months. One index went from 500000
> pages to under 220000. Right now the system is screamingly fast.
>
> Perhaps I need to write an 'auto_reindex' script to notice when this
> is necessary and schedule one to run at the wee hours in the morning
> at the end of the week...

Once again, with 7.4, not needed anymore..

Bye
Shridhar

--
Anthony's Law of the Workshop: Any tool when dropped, will roll into the least accessible corner of the workshop.Corollary: On the way to the corner, any dropped tool will first strike your toes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Fromm 2003-09-02 14:33:05 Re: inserting via "on insert" rule
Previous Message Vivek Khera 2003-09-02 14:19:06 Re: Commercial postgresql