Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: good old VACUUM FULL

From: Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: good old VACUUM FULL
Date: 2011-03-23 04:24:42
Message-ID: 4D89760A.3040109@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 23/03/11 11:52, felix wrote:
> I posted many weeks ago about a severe problem with a table that was
> obviously bloated and was stunningly slow. Up to 70 seconds just to get
> a row count on 300k rows.
>
> I removed the text column, so it really was just a few columns of fixed
> data.
> Still very bloated.  Table size was 450M
>
> The advice I was given was to do CLUSTER, but this did not reduce the
> table size in the least.
> Nor performance.
>
> Also to resize my free space map (which still does need to be done).
> Since that involves tweaking the kernel settings, taking the site down
> and rebooting postgres and exposing the system to all kinds of risks and
> unknowns and expensive experimentations I was unable to do it and have
> had to hobble along with a slow table in my backend holding up jobs.
>
> Much swearing that nobody should ever do VACUUM FULL.  Manual advises
> against it.  Only crazy people do that.

<snip>

> moral of the story:  if your table is really bloated, just do VACUUM FULL

You'll need to reindex that table now - vacuum full can bloat your 
indexes which will affect your other queries.

reindex table fastadder_fastadderstatus;

-- 
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-23 04:31:59
Subject: Re: ANTI-JOIN needs table, index scan not possible?
Previous:From: felixDate: 2011-03-23 00:52:55
Subject: good old VACUUM FULL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group