On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:26:56PM -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
>
> They don't always have to be in a single transaction, that's a good idea to
> break it up and vacuum in between, I'll consider that. Thanks
If you can do it this way, it helps _a lot_. I've had to do this
sort of thing, and breaki
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:04:44PM -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
of these operations or a full dump/reload. I do run VACUUM regularly, it's
just that sometimes we need to go back and update a huge percentage of rows
in a single batch due to changing customer requirements, lea
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:04:44PM -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
> of these operations or a full dump/reload. I do run VACUUM regularly, it's
> just that sometimes we need to go back and update a huge percentage of rows
> in a single batch due to changing customer requirements, leaving us with
> sig
Our usage pattern has recently left me with some very bloated database clusters.
I have, in the past, scheduled downtime to run VACUUM FULL and tried CLUSTER
as well, followed by a REINDEX on all tables. This does work, however the
exclusive lock has become a real thorn in my side. As our sys
