| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | "PostgreSQL General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table? |
| Date: | 2003-02-19 14:11:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200302191941.55796.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wednesday 19 Feb 2003 7:25 pm, you wrote:
> Agreed! If it ruins any caching then in my view it's something that has
> to change in order to keep performance. While there may be a penalty to
> pay on smaller tables, the benefits of caching would more than make up
> for the cost of going forwards - imagine how slow CPUs would be if
> everything was a cache miss....
I have an idea. Don't know what to call it, better or stupid.
If you are doing vacuum full, it means you are ready to lock the database. I
am just wondering if it would be fast to dump the database, drop it and
recreate it.
Good old defragmentation of ext2fs..;-) Of course, having a spare 80Gigs might
turn out to be a problem but I can almost bet that it would finish before 12
hours..
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-02-19 14:22:17 | Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table? |
| Previous Message | Dima Tkach | 2003-02-19 14:07:09 | Re: Index not used with IS NULL |