Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table?
От | Jean-Luc Lachance |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3E55058F.8D9C0AD5@nsd.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table? ("Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: 7.3.1 takes long time to vacuum table?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Well, here is another case where partitioning would be usefull. Lets all agree the that vaccuming a small table should be better done by copying to a new one. Now, if a larger table would be partitioned, it would allow vacuuming one partition at a time. JLL P.S. Is there really a need to reorder the vaccumed table??? "Shridhar Daithankar" wrote: > [...] > Well, One thing I can think of is the extra space required. The algo. looks > good but it would be very difficult to make sure that it works all the time > especially given that postgresql does not have sophisticated and/or tunable > storage handling( think of tablespaces ). > > It is always space-time trade-off. On one hand we have vacuum which uses a > constant and may be negiliible space but takes time proportional to amount of > work. On other hand we have drop/recreate table which takes double the space > but is extremely fast i.e. proportinal to data size at max. I/O bandwidth > available.. > > It would be good if there is in between. Of course it would not be easy to do > it. But it has to start, isn't it?..:-) > > > In fact, my colleague has just done a test with SELECT..INTO on our dev > > version and it compacted 600Mb -> 400Mb in just 40s(!). We then did a > > vacuum full on the same original 600Mb table which is still going after > > 20mins. Difficult choice! So even in a worse case scenario we could have > > a fully vacuumed table within a day.... we're looking at dropping some > > indexes in the db to reclaim enough space to be able to fit another copy > > of the table on the disk... this is looking very tempting at the > > moment.... > > I recommend this strategy of "vacuuming" be documented in standard > documentation and FAQ. Given that postgresql is routinely deployed for > databases >10GB which is greater than small/medium by any definition today, I > think this will be a good move. > > Furthermore this strategy reduces the down time due to vacuum full locks > drastically. I would say it is worth buying a 80GB IDE disk for this purpose > if you have this big database.. > > Nice to see that my idea helped somebody..:-) > > Shridhar > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: