Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
- To: Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:24:22 -0400
- Message-id: <20080418182422(dot)GA11081(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Jeffrey Baker escribió: > That's rather more like it. I guess I always imagined that VACUUM was > a sort of linear process, not random, and that it should proceed at > sequential scan speeds. It's linear for the table, but there are passes for indexes which are random in 8.1. That code was rewritten by Heikki Linnakangas to do linear passes for indexes in 8.2 AFAIR. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
- References:
- 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Jeffrey Baker
- Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Jeffrey Baker
- Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Jeffrey Baker
- Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- From: Jeffrey Baker
- 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- Prev by Date: Re: Message queue table..
- Next by Date: Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- Previous by thread: Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- Next by thread: Re: 3-days-long vacuum of 20GB table
- Indexes: