From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: auto-vacuum vs. full table update
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:53:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4F99A7BC.3030709@commandprompt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFwQ8rd6G0r5oTTo=S=ONTHD797O_9NQLbAybTurPZE3i5ob5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFwQ8rd6G0r5oTTo=S=ONTHD797O_9NQLbAybTurPZE3i5ob5g@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/26/2012 12:49 PM, Craig James wrote:
>
> An update to our system means I'm going to be rewriting every row of
> some large tables (20 million rows by 15 columns). In a situation
> like this, can auto-vacuum take care of it, or should I plan on
> vacuum-full/reindex to clean up?
>
If you rewrite the whole table, you will end up with a table twice the
size, it will not be compacted but as the table grows, the old space
will be reused.
jD
> This is 8.4.4.
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
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: jd@commandprompt.com, cjames@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: auto-vacuum vs. full table update
In-Reply-To: <4F99A7BC.3030709@commandprompt.com>
* 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