| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: good old VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2011-03-23 06:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=TfxNpFW-v1vFBjtJLqnWL=Rcu8DrqaL_0KDL5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:52 PM, felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I posted many weeks ago about a severe problem with a table that was
> obviously bloated and was stunningly slow. Up to 70 seconds just to get a
> row count on 300k rows.
> I removed the text column, so it really was just a few columns of fixed
> data.
> Still very bloated. Table size was 450M
> The advice I was given was to do CLUSTER, but this did not reduce the table
> size in the least.
Then either cluster failed (did you get an error message) or the table
was not bloated. Given that it looks like it was greatly reduced in
size by the vacuum full, I'd guess cluster failed for some reason.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adarsh Sharma | 2011-03-23 06:28:17 | Reason of Slowness of query |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-23 04:31:59 | Re: ANTI-JOIN needs table, index scan not possible? |