From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why does my DB size differ between Production and DR? (Postgres 8.4) |
Date: | 2011-02-03 03:04:45 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim3a0Es0Pt+_1kU0mUDejFw=m3FpGYOXcQApm0a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com (Peter Geoghegan) writes:
>> I'm not sure why you'd advocate CLUSTER as a way to reclaim disk space.
>
> Because it works pretty well; it reorganizes the table on the basis of
> the order indicated by one index, and simultaneously:
> a) Shortens the table, removing all dead space;
> b) Regenerates all indices, so they too have no dead space.
It's important at this point to set fill factor before the cluster if
something besides the default 100% makes sense. any randomly updated
table full of small records will usually benefit from a fill fact even
as high as 95% which is very little "wasted" space for a gain in HOT
updates starting in 8.3. HOT saved our bacon at work. They really
lowered the requirements for disk access / index update a LOT. I wish
I'd have saved the pg_stat_index from 8.1 versus 8.3. And IO
numbers. Our load dropped by a power of ten more or less.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-02-03 03:49:24 | Re: Why does my DB size differ between Production and DR? (Postgres 8.4) |
Previous Message | Aleksey Tsalolikhin | 2011-02-03 02:03:30 | Re: Why does my DB size differ between Production and DR? (Postgres 8.4) |