| From: | "Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Mike Charnoky" <noky(at)nextbus(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: problems with large table |
| Date: | 2007-09-12 20:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | e373d31e0709121320l1bcb66d8r856bd60ad1d15b7c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 13/09/2007, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Mike Charnoky wrote:
>
> > Alvaro: The cluster suggestion probably won't help in my case since data
> > in the table should already be naturally ordered by date.
>
> It's not helpful only for reordering, but also for getting rid of dead
> tuples.
Apart from creating a new table, indexing it, then renaming it to
original table -- is there an alternative to CLUSTER that doesn't
impose a painful ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock on the table? We are on
Postgres 8.2.3 and have a heavy duty table that starts showing its
limits after a week or so. Autovacuum is on and working. FSM etc is
fine, maintenance_work_mem is 256MB. But cluster still takes upwards
of 30 minutes, which is unacceptable downtime for our web service.
Thanks for any tips!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-09-12 20:23:11 | Re: problems with large table |
| Previous Message | Cultural Sublimation | 2007-09-12 20:18:54 | Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL |