Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7799F650008
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:37:20 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 59131-04 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:37:12 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from pyxis.powervt.com.ar (host3.powervt.com.ar [200.43.63.66])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570FC64FD1E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:37:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from pcfhevia ([201.216.249.98])
	by pyxis.powervt.com.ar (IPGroup Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1OT48953
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:36:50 -0300
From: "Fernando Hevia" <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>
To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Big delete on big table... now what?
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:36:44 -0300
Organization: IP-TEL
Message-ID: <042c01c90496$ca8725f0$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AckElsphVd4AF+gQTIyepMzH9A0qZA==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200808/286
X-Sequence-Number: 31167

Hi list.
=20
I have a table with over 30 million rows. Performance was dropping =
steadily
so I moved old data not needed online to an historic table. Now the =
table
has about 14 million rows. I don't need the disk space returned to the =
OS
but I do need to improve performance. Will a plain vacuum do or is a =
vacuum
full necessary?
=BFWould a vacuum full improve performance at all?
=20
Thanks for your hindsight.
Regards,
=20
Fernando.