From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: REINDEX takes half a day (and still not complete!) |
Date: | 2011-05-06 15:15:38 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTinyBmQyEAn04VhUgdb=ANVeQ_gH3Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I suppose that's what I am going to do on a periodic basis from now
> on. There is a lot of DELETE/UPDATE activity. But I wonder if the
> vacuum stuff really should do something that's similar in function?
> What do the high-end enterprise folks do -- surely they can't be
> dumping/restoring every quarter or so....or are they?
The pg_reorg tool (google it) can rebuild a live table rebuilds
without taking major locks. It's better to try an engineer your
database so that you have enough spare i/o to manage 1-2 continuously
running vacuums, but if things get really out of whack it's there.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hägi | 2011-05-06 21:13:20 | indexes ignored when querying the master table |
Previous Message | Dimitri | 2011-05-06 10:53:07 | Re: VX_CONCURRENT flag on vxfs( 5.1 or later) for performance for postgresql? |