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

Re: Vacuum Full - stops responding(?)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>,Krowa Krowax <krowa333(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum Full - stops responding(?)
Date: 2009-10-21 03:03:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
Greg Stark escribió:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> >> The run-time of CLUSTER doesn't vary very much based on whether the
> >> data is already in index order or not. The number of passes only grows
> >> like log(n) of the size of your data and if you set
> >> maintenance_work_mem large enough (somewhere around 100MB-1GB) the
> >> constants are small enough that you're unlikely to even outgrow a
> >> single pass (plus a final merge though)
> >
> > Uh ... what?  It's not based on the sort code, unless someone rewrote it
> > since I looked last.  It's an index scan and will definitely depend on
> > the index ordering.
> Er, uh, of course. I wonder what I was thinking.

Your patched version of course.

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to


pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-10-21 03:14:39
Subject: Re: Vacuum Full - stops responding(?)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-20 21:59:07
Subject: Re: Postgres server goes in recovery mode repeteadly

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