Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm confused. The log trace you showed us before appeared to be from
>> a non-FULL vacuum, but here you're saying it's VACUUM FULL. Which is
>> it ... or did you change?
> Yes, first time I tried vacuum from withing psql, next time I decided
> to run vacuumdb and seems changed option.
Um. Well, a VACUUM FULL is going to build in-memory data structures
that represent *all* of the usable free space in a table. I don't
actually think that VACUUM FULL is useful on an enormous table ... you
want to keep after it with routine plain VACUUMs, instead.
Another possibility is to use CLUSTER or a rewriting ALTER TABLE to
shrink the space, but be aware that this requires a transient second
copy of the table and indexes.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 2005-01-30 07:10:34|
|Subject: Re: Huge memory consumption during vacuum (v.8.0) |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-30 06:58:40|
|Subject: Re: Allowing VACUUM to time out when waiting for locks? |