Re: postgresql performance

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, "SPMLINGAM" <spmlingam(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgresql performance
Date: 2008-03-05 15:46:05
Message-ID: 47CE6BDC.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:39 AM, in message <20080305103945(dot)GA3673(at)uio(dot)no>,
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> wrote:

> it's pretty obvious that you
> haven't vacuumed in a very long time. Run VACUUM FULL on your tables

If you use VACUUM FULL, you should probably throw in ANALYZE with
it, and REINDEX, too. An alternative that is probably faster, but
which requires that you have enough free space for a temporary
additional copy of the data, is to CLUSTER the bloated tables,
which automatically takes care of the indexes, but requires a
subsequent ANALYZE.

> regular (non-FULL) VACUUMs or enable autovacuum.

Absolutely!

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bill Moran 2008-03-05 16:00:13 Re: postgresql performance
Previous Message Ivan Zolotukhin 2008-03-05 14:56:11 Re: PostgreSQL performance on a virtual host