Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON
Date
Msg-id 200607070955.32939.jd@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON  (Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com>)
Responses Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON  (Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com>)
Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON  (Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>)
List pgsql-general
On Friday 07 July 2006 08:19, Sven Willenberger wrote:
> Postgresql 8.0.4 on FreeBSD 5.4
>
> I have a table consisting of some 300million rows that, every couple of
> months, has 100 million rows deleted from it (an immediately vacuumed
> afterward). Even though it gets routinely vacuumed (the only
> deletions/updates are just the quarterly ones), the freespace map was
> not increased in size to keep up with the growing size of the other
> tables in the database which do experience many updates,etc.

Based on the size of the table, you may want to:

Backup the table
Drop the table
Restore the table

Is is possible that this will be faster in this instance.

Secondly this sounds like a perfect time for you to consider upgrading to 8.1
and making use of table partitioning. That way you can just truncate the child
table containing the old data.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Chander Ganesan
Date:
Subject: Re: How to optimize query that concatenates strings?
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL versus CLUSTER ON