From: | Jacob Bunk Nielsen <jacob(at)bunk(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Rearchitecting for storage |
Date: | 2019-07-19 17:52:47 |
Message-ID: | 877e8dgbdc.fsf@paven.bunk.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Matthew Pounsett <matt(at)conundrum(dot)com> writes:
> [...] Is there any rule of thumb for making sure one has enough space
> available for the upgrade?
No, because it depends greatly on which version you are upgrading from
and which version you are upgrading to etc.
Perhaps you could carve out a slice of data, e.g. 1 GB and load it into
a test database and try to upgrade that. That would probably give you an
idea.
Also, you mentioned that your database contains historical test data¹,
then I would guess that one of the indexes is related to timestamps? But
maybe you could live with a smaller BRIN index for the timestamps:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/brin-intro.html - that could
potentially save some space, and may not have been something on the
radar when the database was first developed.
Best regards,
Jacob
¹) I think I know which kind of data based on your progress reports on
a DNS related list I'm subscribed to.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexandru Lazarev | 2019-07-19 18:15:03 | pg_advisory_lock lock FAILURE / What does those numbers mean (process 240828 waits for ExclusiveLock on advisory lock [1167570,16820923,3422556162,1];)? |
Previous Message | Jacob Bunk Nielsen | 2019-07-19 17:39:16 | Re: Rearchitecting for storage |