Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
- To: Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net>
- Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:34:16 +0200
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:14 +0200, Gábor Farkas wrote: > will i achieve the same thing by simply dropping that table and > re-creating it? If you have an index/PK on that table, the fastest and most useful way to rebuild it is to do CLUSTER on that index. That will be a lot faster than VACUUM FULL and it will also order your table in index order... but it will also lock it in exclusive mode just as VACUUM FULL would do it. If your table has just a few live rows and lots of junk in it, CLUSTER should be fast enough. With 20K entries I would expect it to be fast enough not to be a problem... Cheers, Csaba.
- References:
- select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Gábor Farkas
- Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Gábor Farkas
- Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- From: Gábor Farkas
- select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- Prev by Date: Re: TEXT or LONGTEXT?
- Next by Date: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- Previous by thread: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- Next by thread: Re: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)
- Indexes: