Re: Database size Vs performance degradation

From: Miernik <public(at)public(dot)miernik(dot)name>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
Date: 2008-07-30 21:58:34
Message-ID: 20080730215834.5323.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-performance

Valentin Bogdanov <valiouk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> I am guessing that you are using DELETE to remove the 75,000
> unimportant. Change your batch job to CREATE a new table consisting
> only of the 5,000 important. You can use "CREATE TABLE table_name AS
> select_statement" command. Then drop the old table. After that you can
> use ALTER TABLE to change the name of the new table to that of the old
> one.

I have a similar, but different situation, where I TRUNCATE a table with
60k rows every hour, and refill it with new rows. Would it be better
(concerning bloat) to just DROP the table every hour, and recreate it,
then to TRUNCATE it? Or does TRUNCATE take care of the boat as good as a

I am running 8.3.3 in a 48 MB RAM Xen, so performance matters much.


In response to


Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Miernik 2008-07-30 22:11:58 what is less resource-intensive, WHERE id IN or INNER JOIN?
Previous Message Dennis Brakhane 2008-07-30 18:34:16 Re: how does pg handle concurrent queries and same queries