Re: vacuuming and reindexing

From: Diogenes Caraballo <diogns(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tena Sakai <tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuuming and reindexing
Date: 2009-03-21 13:31:49
Message-ID: c82353130903210631x71e1e8a0u65d2684ce2d48292@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

do you also update rows of that table?

because that action delete old one's and insert new one's..

if you are just inserting rows and not updating or deleting, i think is
correct your point.

Regards,
--
"Sin desafíos la vida es una rutina, una lenta agonía"

Diógenes Caraballo

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 18:03, Tena Sakai <tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu> wrote:

> Hi Everybody,
>
> I have a table that I add rows every evening.
> A rule I have for this table is that no row
> ever gets deleted. It has 600+ million rows.
>
> The last time I did it, it took nearly 4 hours
> to vacuum and 13 hours 40 minutes to reindex.
>
> My rudimental understanding of vacuuming is
> that when the rows get "deleted" it is only
> marked as "deleted" but the data is left alone
> until the act of vacuuming takes place. The
> vacuuming really gets rid of rows and pushes
> the data in such the way there is no "hole."
> And therefore after vacuuming, it is necessary
> to reindex (and analyze) the table.
>
> Is this a correct understanding?
>
> If it is (and as new rows get added new indexes
> are also built for the new rows), the fact that
> there is no deletion means there is no necessity
> for vacuuming this particular table?
>
> I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tena Sakai
> tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu
>
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tena Sakai 2009-03-21 21:48:34 Re: vacuuming and reindexing
Previous Message c k 2009-03-21 08:37:40 Accessing large objects