| From: | "Anton Melser" <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce McAlister" <bruce(dot)mcalister(at)blueface(dot)ie>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.3 VACUUM Timings/Performance |
| Date: | 2007-03-13 22:20:38 |
| Message-ID: | 92d3a4950703131520x27de4cc2w4780d0700cf606e2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
> In fact, getting rid of vacuum full, or changing it to work like
> cluster, has been proposed in the past. The use case really is pretty
> narrow; cluster is a lot faster if there's a lot of unused space in the
> table, and if there's not, vacuum full isn't going to do much so there's
> not much point running it in the first place. The reason it exists is
> largely historical, there hasn't been a pressing reason to remove it either.
I can assure you it is a great way to get back gigabytes when someone
has put no vacuum strategy in place and your 200K row table (with
about 200 bytes per row) is taking up 1.7gig!!!
Vive le truncate table, and vive le vacuum full!
:-)
Anton
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reece Hart | 2007-03-13 22:32:55 | Re: orphaned PGDATA/base/ subdirectories |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-03-13 22:16:49 | Re: orphaned PGDATA/base/ subdirectories |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | femski | 2007-03-14 12:46:55 | Re: Postgres batch write very slow - what to do |
| Previous Message | Cosimo Streppone | 2007-03-13 20:22:45 | Re: PostgreSQL in virtual machine |