| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum-full very slow |
| Date: | 2007-04-25 16:36:35 |
| Message-ID: | 462F8393.4040101@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> You could try CLUSTER instead of VACUUM FULL, as I think it should be
> faster. And the indexes will be devoid of any bloat, which will be a
> nice side effect.
>
> I wonder, though, if you set maintenance_work_mem too high and are
> causing the OS to swap?
>
Hmmm, why would cluster be faster?
No swapping - "top" shows swap mem of 3MB used and that wasn't changing.
Just to be sure I ran "swapoff -a ; swapon -a" which brought it back to
zero and it's not budging from there.
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tilmann Singer | 2007-04-25 16:40:14 | Re: Audit-trail engine: getting the application's layer user_id |
| Previous Message | Manuel Sugawara | 2007-04-25 16:15:09 | Re: Audit-trail engine: getting the application's layer user_id |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-04-25 16:40:52 | Re: Improving deadlock error messages |
| Previous Message | Mark Wong | 2007-04-25 16:26:10 | Re: ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista) |