Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question - Mailing list pgsql-general

From wsheldah@lexmark.com
Subject Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question
Date
Msg-id 200108151801.OAA20301@interlock2.lexmark.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question  (Philip Crotwell <crotwell@seis.sc.edu>)
List pgsql-general

If there were lots of inserts, I would guess it would need to re-analyze the
tables to update its statistics on them, so the query optimizer can make good
choices.

--Wes




Philip Crotwell <crotwell%seis.sc.edu@interlock.lexmark.com> on 08/15/2001
01:08:19 PM

To:   Joseph Shraibman <jks%selectacast.net@interlock.lexmark.com>
cc:   pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Wesley
      Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question



Hi

Just did a vacuum, took almost 4 hours. The interesting thing about this
is that there are only two small tables that have updates, everything else
has been just inserts. I would have thought that a vacuum of a database
shouldn't take very long if there aren't alot of "deleted" rows.






pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: David Wright
Date:
Subject: viewing/restoring old rows
Next
From: "chris markiewicz"
Date:
Subject: hangs while getting large objects...