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

Re: update functions locking tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Clodoaldo Pinto <clodoaldo(dot)pinto(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"pgsql-general postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: update functions locking tables
Date: 2005-08-30 14:05:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:18:20AM -0300, Clodoaldo Pinto wrote:
> 30 Aug 2005 09:10:51 -0400, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>:

> > Also, if consider doing a "vacuum full" or "cluster" after the batch job to
> > clear up the free space (not in a large transaction). That will still take a
> > table lock but it may be a small enough downtime to be worth the speed
> > increase the rest of the day.
> I'm already doing a vacuum (not full) once a day.
> A vacuum full or a cluster is totally out of reach since each take
> about one hour. 

Even if you cluster/vacuum only the just-loaded table?

> The biggest table is 170 million rows long.

I hope this is not the one you are loading daily ...

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre[]>      Architect,
"El destino baraja y nosotros jugamos" (A. Schopenhauer)

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2005-08-30 14:08:36
Subject: Re: Cursor declaration
Previous:From: Guy DouneDate: 2005-08-30 13:39:40
Subject: Get postgresql workin in french...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group