From: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: Fernando Hevia <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Big delete on big table... now what?
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:30:59 -0500
Message-ID: <48AEE9C3.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <042c01c90496$ca8725f0$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar>
References: <042c01c90496$ca8725f0$8f01010a@iptel.com.ar>
>>> "Fernando Hevia" <fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar> wrote:
> I have a table with over 30 million rows. Performance was dropping
steadily
> so I moved old data not needed online to an historic table. Now the
table
> has about 14 million rows. I don't need the disk space returned to
the OS
> but I do need to improve performance. Will a plain vacuum do or is a
vacuum
> full necessary?
> *Would a vacuum full improve performance at all?
If this database can be out of production for long enough to run it
(possibly a few hours, depending on hardware, configuration, table
width, indexes) your best option might be to CLUSTER and ANALYZE the
table. It gets more complicated if you can't tolerate down-time.
-Kevin
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: Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, fhevia@ip-tel.com.ar
Subject: Re: Big delete on big table... now what?
In-Reply-To: <48AEE9C3.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
* 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