| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jason Minion <jason(dot)minion(at)sigler(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: dbsize & pg_dump |
| Date: | 2006-04-26 22:47:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20060426224732.GF97354@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:47:53PM -0500, Jason Minion wrote:
> Usually a dump is significantly smaller than a live database due to
> space taken up by indexes and discarded tuples from MVCC. If it's
> significantly smaller you may also want to take a look at your vacuuming
> procedure.
Between excluding the database overhead (mostly tuple headers),
excluding indexes, and compression, getting a 10x reduction in database
size isn't unexpected. Using pg_dumpall and bzip2 the databases on
http://stats.distributed.net go from 41G down to 2G.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-26 22:50:36 | Re: Tale partitioning |
| Previous Message | Warren Little | 2006-04-26 22:21:27 | need a bit of help |