From: | elliott <elliott(at)cpi(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database Bloat |
Date: | 2012-08-20 18:46:24 |
Message-ID: | 50328600.4030105@cpi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
envdb=# \d astgtm2_n60e073;
Table "public.astgtm2_n60e073"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
lat | real |
lon | real |
alt | integer |
Indexes:
"q3c_astgtm2_n60e073_idx" btree (q3c_ang2ipix(lon, lat)) CLUSTER
On 8/20/2012 2:10 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 08/20/12 10:53 AM, elliott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using PostgreSQL 9.1 and loading very large tables ( 13 million
>> rows each ). The flat file size is only 25M. However, the
>> equivalent database table is 548MB. This is without any indexes
>> applied and auto vacuum turned on. I have read that the bloat can
>> be around 5 times greater for tables than flat files so over 20 times
>> seems quite excessive.
>>
>> Any ideas on how to go about decreasing this bloat or is this not
>> unexpected for such large tables?
>
>
> what do the fields of this table look like (output from \d tablename
> would be useful)
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2012-08-20 19:06:01 | Re: How hard would a "path" operator be to implement in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Evil | 2012-08-20 18:34:14 | Grant problem and how to prevent users to execute OS commands? |