From: | Olivier Gautherot <ogautherot(at)gautherot(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuum vs vacuum full |
Date: | 2020-11-18 10:00:17 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7S9TWG_PD2YfBH3hQPT8Cww60LC8snXUjvqrh6b2LOe2XQTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:45 AM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/18/20 3:41 AM, Olivier Gautherot wrote:
>
> Hi Atul,
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:33 AM Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have a table of 3113GB, and we are planning to vacuum it in non
>> business hours i.e. 12AM to 4AM, So my queries are:
>>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> 3. Will the operation be completed in the given time frame? how to
>> check the same.
>>
>
> Given the size of the table, it will probably take several days.
>
>
> No matter how long it takes, this is an excellent argument for
> partitioning Very Large Tables: many maintenance tasks are made *much*
> easier.
>
I can only agree with this comment. The main issue I see is the available
disk space, as the partitioning process will include copying the whole
table.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Libre
de virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marcin Giedz | 2020-11-18 10:05:47 | Re: pg_upgrade from 12 to 13 failes with plpython2 |
Previous Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2020-11-18 09:57:15 | Re: vacuum vs vacuum full |