From: | Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_attribute size |
Date: | 2009-10-26 23:35:35 |
Message-ID: | f2fd819a0910261635o8b62787m54f6c48eaf915729@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I am guessing the analyze helped the pgadmin data-dictionary query
planning..The vacuum will help with space re-use. the size is not
smaller as I did not do a vacuum full.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> We have several partitioned tables that get dropped every day ..We do
>> not do autovacuum as it is an IO hog (and most tables are dropped
>> anyways..and the large tables are never updated)..
>
> 1: autovac can be adjusted to use much less IO than regular vacuum.
> 2: You can tell it to ignore certain tables.
>
>> I however did a plain vacuum analyze and that fixed the problem with
>> tools(e.g pgadmin) that accessed the data dictionary and were very
>> slow before the vacuum.
>
> Huh. Is the pg_attribute size much smaller?
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Schmidt | 2009-10-27 07:53:00 | Re: pg_standby doesnt't work |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-10-26 23:27:05 | Re: pg_attribute size |