Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58EF9FA02D for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:14:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33958-07 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:14:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail.uptime.at (mail.uptime.at [62.116.87.11]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BE79FA027 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:14:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.120] (exterminator.ba.uptime.at [195.46.69.54]) by mail.uptime.at (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l8OFEObU002189; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:14:25 +0200 Message-ID: <46F7D453.4050908@nekomancer.net> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:14:27 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Farkas?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070919) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Heikki Linnakangas CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help) References: <46F7C494.1050604@nekomancer.net> <46F7C9F1.1080805@enterprisedb.com> <46F7D207.3000901@nekomancer.net> <46F7D2C7.70105@enterprisedb.com> In-Reply-To: <46F7D2C7.70105@enterprisedb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4376/Mon Sep 24 04:15:24 2007 on mail.uptime.at X-Virus-Status: Clean X-uptime-MailScanner-Information: Please contact uptime Systemloesungen for more Information X-uptime-MailScanner: Clean as a baby X-uptime-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=1.4, required 5.2, BAYES_60 1.40) X-uptime-MailScanner-SpamScore: 1.40 X-MailScanner-From: gabor@nekomancer.net X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/422 X-Sequence-Number: 26967 Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Gábor Farkas wrote: >> >> if i do a full vacuum to that table only, will the database still serve >> data from the other tables at a normal speed? > > Yes. The extra I/O load vacuum full generates while it's running might > disrupt other activity, though. > i see. will i achieve the same thing by simply dropping that table and re-creating it? gabor