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

Re: good old VACUUM FULL

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: good old VACUUM FULL
Date: 2011-03-23 06:16:55
Message-ID: AANLkTi=TfxNpFW-v1vFBjtJLqnWL=Rcu8DrqaL_0KDL5@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:52 PM, felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com> 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.

Then either cluster failed (did you get an error message) or the table
was not bloated.  Given that it looks like it was greatly reduced in
size by the vacuum full, I'd guess cluster failed for some reason.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Adarsh SharmaDate: 2011-03-23 06:28:17
Subject: Reason of Slowness of query
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-23 04:31:59
Subject: Re: ANTI-JOIN needs table, index scan not possible?

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