From: Miernik <public@public.miernik.name>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:58:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20080730215834.5323.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local> (raw)
References: <35FABCF85D99464FB00BC5123DC2A70A051D0FB8@s228130hz1ew09.apptix-01.savvis.net>
<276541.4189.qm@web25805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Valentin Bogdanov <valiouk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I am guessing that you are using DELETE to remove the 75,000
> unimportant. Change your batch job to CREATE a new table consisting
> only of the 5,000 important. You can use "CREATE TABLE table_name AS
> select_statement" command. Then drop the old table. After that you can
> use ALTER TABLE to change the name of the new table to that of the old
> one.
I have a similar, but different situation, where I TRUNCATE a table with
60k rows every hour, and refill it with new rows. Would it be better
(concerning bloat) to just DROP the table every hour, and recreate it,
then to TRUNCATE it? Or does TRUNCATE take care of the boat as good as a
DROP and CREATE?
I am running 8.3.3 in a 48 MB RAM Xen, so performance matters much.
--
Miernik
http://miernik.name/
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: public@public.miernik.name
Subject: Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
In-Reply-To: <20080730215834.5323.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox