Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: vacuum full 100 mins plus?

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum full 100 mins plus?
Date: 2004-07-15 02:21:29
Message-ID: m33c3uhuxi.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, PHatcher(at)macys(dot)com (Patrick Hatcher) wrote:
> Answered my own question.  I gave up the vacuum full after 150 mins.  I was
> able to export to a file, vacuum full the empty table, and reimport in less
> than 10 mins.  I suspect the empty item pointers and the sheer number of
> removable rows was causing an issue.

In that case, you'd be a little further better off if the steps were:
 - drop indices;
 - copy table to file (perhaps via pg_dump -t my_table);
 - truncate the table, or drop-and-recreate, both of which make
   it unnecessary to do _any_ vacuum of the result;
 - recreate indices, probably with SORT_MEM set high, to minimize
   paging to disk
 - analyze the table (no need to vacuum if you haven't created any
   dead tuples)
 - cut SORT_MEM back down to "normal" sizes
-- 
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Signs  of a   Klingon  Programmer  #6: "Debugging?   Klingons  do  not
debug. Our software does not coddle the weak."

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-15 04:36:43
Subject: Re: vacuum full 100 mins plus?
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-07-15 01:41:01
Subject: Re: Odd sorting behaviour

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group