From: | raghu ram <raghuchennuru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nic Chidu <nic(at)chidu(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: full vacuum of a very large table |
Date: | 2011-03-29 16:21:48 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=CBjmnmPuKFGXx9gKR7RE=d88j=30SupN+h-LF@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Nic Chidu <nic(at)chidu(dot)net> wrote:
> Got a situation where a 130 mil rows (137GB) table needs to be brought down
> in size to 10 mil records (most recent)
> with the least amount of downtime.
>
> Doing a full vacuum would be faster on:
> - 120 mil rows deleted and 10 mil active (delete most of them then full
> vacuum)
> - 10 mil deleted and 120 mil active. (delete small batches and full vacuum
> after each delete).
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
Best recommended way is, take the dump of the table after dropping un-used
rows from the table and restored back to the database. Dump and reload would
be faster than a VACUUM FULL.
--Raghu Ram
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nic
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashish Nauriyal | 2011-03-29 16:27:02 | Re: full vacuum of a very large table |
Previous Message | Plugge, Joe R. | 2011-03-29 16:04:33 | Re: full vacuum of a very large table |