Re: Best approach for large table maintenance

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: "Vanole, Mike" <MV5492(at)att(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Best approach for large table maintenance
Date: 2008-05-14 16:02:37
Message-ID: EA01617F-D258-48B4-8E38-0625AF3D8AD2@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Vanole, Mike wrote:
> It seems that running vacuum still has value in the above approach
> because I still see index row versions were removed.

That means either part of the import failed (transaction aborted), or
you're updating or deleting rows between the load and the vacuum.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-14 16:05:50 Re: Alias in the HAVING clause
Previous Message Ивайло Гелов 2008-05-14 15:51:00 Re: Strange behaviour - performance decreases after each TRUNCATE