Personally, provided you have the room, I would build a new table off to the side and then migrate what you need to keep to the new table, when done, and satisfied that you have all of the candidate rows, ranem the original to table to "x_tablename" and rename the newly created table into place to take over.... if all is good .. simply drop the x_tablename table.
From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Nic Chidu
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: [ADMIN] full vacuum of a very large table
Got a situation where a 130 mil rows (137GB) table needs to be brought down in size to 10 mil records (most recent) with the least amount of downtime.
Doing a full vacuum would be faster on:
- 120 mil rows deleted and 10 mil active (delete most of them then full vacuum)
- 10 mil deleted and 120 mil active. (delete small batches and full vacuum after each delete).
Any other suggestions?
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org) To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: raghu ram||Date: 2011-03-29 16:21:48|
|Subject: Re: full vacuum of a very large table|
|Previous:||From: Nic Chidu||Date: 2011-03-29 15:56:05|
|Subject: full vacuum of a very large table|