From: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
To: Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Hartmann <andreas@apache.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Less rows -> better performance?
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:53:56 +0800
Message-ID: <488494F4.5070401@postnewspapers.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d4e0c10807210432v45c6272awb1ea13974747de54@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48846A02.7090702@apache.org>
<48846DA3.2090308@archonet.com>
<4884722A.1000405@apache.org>
<1d4e0c10807210432v45c6272awb1ea13974747de54@mail.gmail.com>
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Andreas Hartmann <andreas@apache.org> wrote:
>> SELECT pg_database.datname,
>> pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size(pg_database.datname)) AS size
>> FROM pg_database where pg_database.datname = 'vvz_live_1';
>>
>> datname | size
>> ---------------+---------
>> vvz_live_1 | 2565 MB
>>
>> I wonder why the actual size is so much bigger than the data-only dump - is
>> this because of index data etc.?
>
> More probably because the database is totally bloated. Do you run
> VACUUM regularly or did you set up autovacuum?
You might also want to REINDEX and see if that improves things. My
understanding is that if vacuum isn't run regularly, the indexes may end
up a bit of a mess as well as the tables.
--
Craig Ringer
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: craig@postnewspapers.com.au, guillaume.smet@gmail.com, andreas@apache.org
Subject: Re: Less rows -> better performance?
In-Reply-To: <488494F4.5070401@postnewspapers.com.au>
* 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