| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum full 100 mins plus? |
| Date: | 2004-07-15 02:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | m33c3uhuxi.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, PHatcher(at)macys(dot)com (Patrick Hatcher) wrote:
> Answered my own question. I gave up the vacuum full after 150 mins. I was
> able to export to a file, vacuum full the empty table, and reimport in less
> than 10 mins. I suspect the empty item pointers and the sheer number of
> removable rows was causing an issue.
In that case, you'd be a little further better off if the steps were:
- drop indices;
- copy table to file (perhaps via pg_dump -t my_table);
- truncate the table, or drop-and-recreate, both of which make
it unnecessary to do _any_ vacuum of the result;
- recreate indices, probably with SORT_MEM set high, to minimize
paging to disk
- analyze the table (no need to vacuum if you haven't created any
dead tuples)
- cut SORT_MEM back down to "normal" sizes
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer #6: "Debugging? Klingons do not
debug. Our software does not coddle the weak."
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-15 04:36:43 | Re: vacuum full 100 mins plus? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-07-15 01:41:01 | Re: Odd sorting behaviour |