| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: : Performance Improvement Strategy |
| Date: | 2011-10-05 17:09:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=1sfgPk0z2zwTqEMapu+5=VHWAB+o9azHs-LytXgsWNnQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 12:13 PM, Venkat Balaji wrote:
>>
>> I as a DBA, suggested to perform VACUUM FULL and RE-INDEXING + ANALYZE to
>> ensure that IO performance and Indexing performance would be good
>
>
> Read http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/VACUUM_FULL before you run VACUUM FULL.
> You probably don't want to do that. A multi-gigabyte table can easily be
> unavailable for several hours if you execute VACUUM FULL against it.
> CLUSTER is almost always faster.
It used to be that cluster on a very randomly ordered table was much
slower than doing something like select * into newtable from oldtable
order by col1, col2; Is that still the case in 9.0/9.1?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-05 18:15:54 | Re: : Performance Improvement Strategy |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-05 16:13:59 | Re: : Performance Improvement Strategy |