RE: Postgresqlism & Vacuum? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject RE: Postgresqlism & Vacuum?
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0004142132080.2807-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Postgresqlism & Vacuum?  ("Andrew Snow" <als@fl.net.au>)
List pgsql-general
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Andrew Snow wrote:

> > v7.0beta5, with a table that has *over* 5miillion tuples:
> > pgsql% time psql -c "vacuum" postgresql
> > VACUUM
> > 0.000u 0.022s 2:46.67 0.0%      0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
>
> That certainly is good.  I look forward to installing a non-beta version 7
> in place of the current latest 6 and testing!  Don't forget it depends not
> only how big the table is in tuples, but how many bytes, how many index,
> etc..  Also the "analyze" option takes a while longer as you know

That is true ... that is why I generally do a vacuum first then analyze
second ... it at least *feels* faster :)

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Franck Martin
Date:
Subject: Data Type...
Next
From: Haroldo Stenger
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresqlism & Vacuum?