| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | dave(at)turbocat(dot)de (David Wetzel) |
| Cc: | ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| Date: | 1999-01-07 00:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | 199901070050.TAA20530@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
> > From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
>
> > > insert a few row in a table (>50000) and do
> > > delete from mytable;
> > > vacuum verbose analyze;
> > >
> > > Why is this that slow?
> >
> > Analyze checks every column in every row.
>
> even if you only type "vacuum verbose" it takes _very_ long.
>
> I deleted _all_ records with "delete from mytable;" before.
> A drop and a new create is faster. But what is when you delete (maybe
> 100000) rows but keep 100 in the table?
>
> I use 6.4.2 on NetBSD/i486 (that box makes gets 12MBytes/sec via the
> filesystem out of the drives)
Not sure what to say. Vacuum does take a while, and it is often faster
to drop and recreate.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-01-07 01:16:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Libpq functions |
| Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 1999-01-06 23:20:11 | Re: [HACKERS] SQLJ |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Unprivileged user | 1999-01-07 01:35:01 | Port Bug Report: The postgres server crashes |
| Previous Message | David Wetzel | 1999-01-06 22:38:29 | Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |