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
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 |