From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Julian Scarfe" <julian(at)avbrief(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: truncate/create slowness |
Date: | 2005-03-31 23:33:32 |
Message-ID: | 1551.1112312012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Julian Scarfe" <julian(at)avbrief(dot)com> writes:
> Do you have any rules of thumb for deciding when a pg_dumpall/restore is
> likely to be faster than a vacuum full? Or perhaps more straightforwardly,
> how would you expect the time required for a vacuum full to scale with pages
> used and rows in the table?
There is a factor that's proportional to the number of tuples deleted,
and a bigger factor that's proportional to the number of tuples moved
while trying to compact the table. If you've got a seriously bloated
table then it's fairly likely that *all* the surviving tuples will get
moved because none of them are near the start of the table already :-(
Having said that, though, a vacuum full and reindex on pg_class and
pg_attribute will certainly solve Steve's problem faster than a dump
and reload, simply because there's not much stuff in those catalogs
compared to any reasonably-sized user tables.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jamie Deppeler | 2005-04-01 00:05:59 | getGeneratedKeys() |
Previous Message | Cristian Prieto | 2005-03-31 22:26:08 | Help with case in select |