On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:11:25AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> Thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking.
> --- "Michael G. Martin" <michael(at)vpmonline(dot)com> wrote:
> > You then remove a bunch of old tuples. Space is still X+Y. You now
> > have 2 basic options:
> > 1. Run a vacuum full -- this locks the entier table, and de-fragments
> > all unused space, so space is now back to X. Table will grow incremently
> > by Y over the next 6 months again.
> > 2. Run a lazy vacuum-- no lock, no de-fragment, space is still X+Y.
> > Assuming max_fsm_pages was large enough to hold all the changed pages,
> > over the next 6 months, the space remains fixed at about X+Y. You are
> > now re-using the unused table space.
> > Either solution will work. If you really want to cut disk space, choose
> > 1. If you want to keep the space at about it optimal size and avoid any
> > downtime, choose 2.
> > --Michael
Do not forget to reindex the db after the delete, index's do not
manage them selves(if I remember correctly). The index will continue
to grow until it eats your file system, as it did with me. Also if
you do not reindex regulary it can take a looong time to do, much like
vacuum. Also bigger indexes mean slower queries.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: ashwini sridhar||Date: 2002-07-26 17:42:38|
|Subject: unsubscribe me|
|Previous:||From: LUTZ GEOFFREY||Date: 2002-07-26 16:59:30|