From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deleting millions of rows |
Date: | 2009-02-02 20:07:59 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070902021207y636a0139r9fdd6ffc2a252e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> wrote:
>> How much memory do you have in your machine? What is work_mem set to?
>
> 32G; work_mem=64M
Hmm. Well then I'm not sure why you're running out of memory, that
seems like a bug. Taking a long time, I understand. Crashing, not so
much.
>> Did you try VACUUM FULL instead of just plain VACUUM to recover
>> performance? You might also need to REINDEX.
>> Or you could TRUNCATE the table.
>
> I didn't try FULL or REINDEX. In this case, TRUNCATE is the best option as I
> was just trying to reset the state of the table for another test. But this
> brings up another question: will autovacuum do the right thing to preserve
> performance on this table when many rows are deleted?
I don't think so. I think you need to VACUUM FULL and REINDEX when
you do a big DELETE. But if you TRUNCATE then you should be OK - no
further cleanup required in that case.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Wilson | 2009-02-02 20:20:14 | Re: Deleting millions of rows |
Previous Message | Brian Cox | 2009-02-02 20:01:53 | Re: Deleting millions of rows |