From: | Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question |
Date: | 2001-08-15 17:08:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.10.10108151259050.12843-100000@tigger.seis.sc.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi
Just did a vacuum, took almost 4 hours. The interesting thing about this
is that there are only two small tables that have updates, everything else
has been just inserts. I would have thought that a vacuum of a database
shouldn't take very long if there aren't alot of "deleted" rows.
Another problem is that the size of the database is now 52Gb!!! I
assume that it is WAL files growing out of control? I thought this was
fixed in 7.1.2? As soon as I start a second vacuum the size drops back
down to 27Gb.
thanks,
Philip
pooh 19>date ; time vacuumdb sceppdata ; date
Wed Aug 15 09:09:19 EDT 2001
VACUUM
0.03u 0.08s 3:49:07.53 0.0%
Wed Aug 15 12:58:29 EDT 2001
pooh 20>
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>
>
> Philip Crotwell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have a very large database of seismic data. It is about 27 Gb now, and
> > growing at about the rate of 1 Gb every 3-4 days. I am running
> <snip>
>
> Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to vacuum that?
>
> --
> Joseph Shraibman
> jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
> Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | wsheldah | 2001-08-15 18:01:23 | Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question |
Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2001-08-15 16:55:16 | Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd) |