Re: full vacuum of a very large table

yeah , This is the best solution, Where you dont need much resources and DB
to do more work, You will save a lot here.

Just simple inserts from base table to new table with your condition,
verify ,
rename base table to some other, new table to base tablename.
analyze this table.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Plugge, Joe R. <JRPlugge(at)west(dot)com> wrote:

> Personally, provided you have the room, I would build a new table off to
> the side and then migrate what you need to keep to the new table, when done,
> and satisfied that you have all of the candidate rows, ranem the original to
> table to "x_tablename" and rename the newly created table into place to take
> over.... if all is good .. simply drop the x_tablename table.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:
> pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Nic Chidu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:56 AM
> To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [ADMIN] full vacuum of a very large table
>
> Got a situation where a 130 mil rows (137GB) table needs to be brought down
> in size to 10 mil records (most recent) with the least amount of downtime.
>
> Doing a full vacuum would be faster on:
> - 120 mil rows deleted and 10 mil active (delete most of them then full
> vacuum)
> - 10 mil deleted and 120 mil active. (delete small batches and full vacuum
> after each delete).
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nic
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org) To make
> changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>