X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B2911F65EE for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 17:37:15 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.167 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YSc8kpa+zEEi for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 17:37:07 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zeus.gigaweb.cz (zeus.gigaweb.cz [81.0.236.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53BDD11F660C for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 17:37:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 28411 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2006 20:37:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (89.102.142.167) by 0 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2006 20:37:08 -0000 Message-ID: <44397071.80008@fuzzy.cz> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:37:05 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060131) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases References: <443950FB.4050707@fuzzy.cz> <20060409183747.GB15094@surnet.cl> In-Reply-To: <20060409183747.GB15094@surnet.cl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200604/182 X-Sequence-Number: 18266 > Probably the indexes are bloated after the vacuum full. I think the > best way to get rid of the "fat" is to recreate both tables and indexes > anew. For this the best tool would be to CLUSTER the tables on some > index, probably the primary key. This will be much faster than > VACUUMing the tables, and the indexes will be much smaller as result. I guess you're right. I forgot to mention there are 12 composed indexes on the largest (and not deleted) table B, having about 14.000.000 rows and 1 GB of data. I'll try to dump/reload the database ... t.v.