X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9958D52EC6 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:19:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10905-10 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:19:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD9A52EB2 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:19:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.53.154]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IK700KPAFC6CIB3@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:19:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8312864C998; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17223-06; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 605C960E567; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:30:58 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: "Vacuum Full Analyze" taking so long In-reply-to: To: "Tomeh, Husam" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-Followup-To: "Tomeh, Husam" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20050725213058.GQ19080@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at mathom.us References: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/375 X-Sequence-Number: 13616 I'd say, "don't do that". Unless you've deleted a lot of stuff and are expecting the DB to shrink, a full vacuum shouldn't really be needed. On a DB that big a full vacuum is just going to take a long time. If you really are shrinking, consider structuring things so you can just drop a table instead of vacuuming it (the drop is fairly instantaneous). If you can't do that, consider dropping the indices, vacuuming, and recreating the indices. Mike Stone