From: | "SpaceBallOne" <space_ball_one(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "John A Meinel" <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can anyone explain this: duplicate dbs. |
Date: | 2005-05-25 02:53:07 |
Message-ID: | BAY14-DAV16F2B796085B6591A93AFACC0E0@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> What version of postgres?
8.0.2 ... but I think I've seen this before on 7.3 ...
> There are a few possibilities. If you are having a lot of updates to the
> table, you can get index bloat. And vacuum doesn't fix indexes. You have
> to "REINDEX" to do that. Though REINDEX has the same lock that VACUUM
> FULL has, so you need to be a little careful with it.
> Probably better is to do CLUSTER, as it does a REINDEX and a sort, so
> your table ends up nicer when you are done.
Thanks, will try those next time this problem crops up (i just deleted /
recreated the database to speed things for its users in the office ...
probably should have held off to see if I could find a solution first!).
Yes, the database / table-in-question does have a lot of updates, deletes,
and new rows (relatively speaking for a small business).
Would CLUSTER / REINDEX still have an effect if our queries were done via
sequential scan? This is a old database (as in built by me when i was just
starting to learn unix / postgres) so the database design is pretty horrible
(little normalisation, no indexes).
Have taken Chris's advice onboard too and setup cron to do a vacuumdb hourly
instead of my weekly vacuum.
Cheers,
Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John A Meinel | 2005-05-25 03:00:34 | Re: Can anyone explain this: duplicate dbs. |
Previous Message | John A Meinel | 2005-05-25 02:39:15 | Re: Can anyone explain this: duplicate dbs. |