Re: Less rows -> better performance?
От
Craig Ringer
Тема
Re: Less rows -> better performance?
Дата
Msg-id
488494F4.5070401@postnewspapers.com.au
Ответ на
Re: Less rows -> better performance? (Guillaume Smet)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Less rows -> better performance? Andreas Hartmann <andreas@apache.org>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? Andreas Hartmann <andreas@apache.org>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? Andreas Hartmann <andreas@apache.org>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa@gmail.com>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Re: Less rows -> better performance? "Christian GRANDIN" <christian.grandin@gmail.com>
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Andreas Hartmann wrote: >> SELECT pg_database.datname, >> pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(pg_database.datname)) AS size >> FROM pg_database where pg_database.datname = 'vvz_live_1'; >> >> datname | size >> ---------------+--------- >> vvz_live_1 | 2565 MB >> >> I wonder why the actual size is so much bigger than the data-only dump - is >> this because of index data etc.? > > More probably because the database is totally bloated. Do you run > VACUUM regularly or did you set up autovacuum? You might also want to REINDEX and see if that improves things. My understanding is that if vacuum isn't run regularly, the indexes may end up a bit of a mess as well as the tables. -- Craig Ringer
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления