From: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jens Wilke <jens(at)wilke(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_reorg |
Date: | 2011-04-21 00:24:44 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimuX=HZ22fJsbhKF-w15M7M0QP4Rg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Jens Wilke <jens(at)wilke(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 04:02:01AM +0530, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
>
> > > IIRC "vacuum full" mode rewrites the indexes as well.
> >
> > Till 8.4 no. From 9.0 onwards yes. However VACUUM FULL still locks the
> table.
>
> Don't be confused with the "vacuum full" term.
> This has nothing to do with the postgresql "vacuum full" command.
> Both pg_reorg's "vacuum full" and "cluster" mode do the pretty same thing.
> They rewrite the table and all their indexes. They use triggers to update
> the new table during the reorganisation.
> The only difference is that "cluster" does an additional order by.
> Both of them lock the original table at the end of the reorganisation just
> for the switch.
> If the lock is not granted within -T seconds, the backends holding locks
> are canceled.
>
> If you run out of diskspace, it's possible to reorg table by table.
> And yes, pg_reorg does only work with tables with a primary key.
> This will change in future releases, IIRC
>
How does it do with tables that have huge amounts (50 - 100 GB ) of TOASTed
data?
>
> regards, Jens
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-04-21 02:38:47 | Re: Different views of remote server |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-04-20 23:27:56 | Re: Help - corruption issue? |