Re: size of indexes and tables (more than 1GB)

Hi Chris,

 > If you're running VACUUM often enough, then there's nothing wrong, and
 > nothing to be done.  You're simply observing how PostgreSQL handles
 > large tables.

Wrong. I have a big table - running VACUUM the first time needs as long
as I run it after the VACUUM has finished. There are other problems with
VACUUM, fixed in 8.1. In 8.1. you have a server internal AUTOVACUUM -
setting this correct might be the solution.

My table has about 40GB of data with about 120 million tuples. Correct
max_fsm settings, etc...

I created test datases with about 10-20 million tuples - and VACUUM runs
fast, but not when you do many changes and your tables are mooooore bigger.

Chris Browne wrote:
> jafn82@gmail.com (jose fuenmayor) writes:
>
>>I read and have seen that when a table has more than 1GB it is divided
>>in several files with the names of inode,inode.1,inode.2,inode.3, etc.
>>
>>I have a table of 1.3 GB (9.618.118 rows,13 fields) it is divided in
>>that way  as i see on /PGDATA/base but each file has the same size i
>>mean
>>table inode (1.3GB), inode.1(1.3GB),inode.2(1.3GB) so is  this not a
>>waste of space?, are those file sizes reusable by postgresql?.
>>
>>The size of the table is 3 times bigger than,  for instance Visual Fox
>>Pro dbf's? since is there fisically three times.
>
>
> Having "file", "file.1", "file.2", and such is routine; that is the
> normal handling of tables that grow beyond 1GB in size.  If there is
> actually 3GB of data to store in the table, then there is nothing to
> be 'fixed' about this.  There is no duplication of data; each of those
> files contains distinct sets of tuples.
>
> First question...
>
> Are you vacuuming the table frequently to reclaim dead space?
>
> If that table is heavily updated (e.g. - via DELETE/UPDATE; mere
> INSERTs do NOT represent "updates" in this context), then maybe
> there's a lot of dead space, and running VACUUM would cut down on the
> size.
>
> If you're running VACUUM often enough, then there's nothing wrong, and
> nothing to be done.  You're simply observing how PostgreSQL handles
> large tables.