You were right. I just reindexed the DB and I saw no real changes in drive
storage (those tablespaces are on separate hard disk volumes). Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Reindexing-and-tablespaces-tp5789827p5789853.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL -
Hello to all,
I have done ALTER DATABASE [database_name] SET default_tablespace =
[new_tablespace]; I am wondering, if I reindex this entire DB would the
indexes automatically moved into the [new_tablespace] or will they remain in
the tablespace they were originally created on;
--
View this
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM, alexandros_e alexandros...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello to all,
I have done ALTER DATABASE [database_name] SET default_tablespace =
[new_tablespace]; I am wondering, if I reindex this entire DB would the
indexes automatically moved into the [new_tablespace] or will
Hi all -
I ran query this morning, I got a wrong results. I have run the same
query in an other environment with same data and I got the result set I was
expecting.
After that I did a re index and on the table I was getting incorrect
results, the data then came out fine,
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:12, akp geek akpg...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
I ran query this morning, I got a wrong results. I have run the same
query in an other environment with same data and I got the result set I was
expecting.
After that I did a re index and on the table I
thanks.. the index I was having is gist on a to_tsvector column . version we
have is 8.3
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:12, akp geek akpg...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
I ran query this morning, I got a wrong results. I
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:28, akp geek akpg...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks.. the index I was having is gist on a to_tsvector column . version we
have is 8.3
What minor version? I sounds like you _could_ be hitting any of the below:
- (8.3.14) Fix detection of page splits in temporary GiST indexes
Tom Lane wrote:
There never was a 7.1.4 release, so I suspect the OP meant 7.4.1
not that that speaks very much better for his software maintenance
habits. Even with the more charitable interpretation, it's a version
that was obsoleted four years ago next week.
In my experience at
Lew wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
There never was a 7.1.4 release, so I suspect the OP meant 7.4.1
not that that speaks very much better for his software maintenance
habits. Even with the more charitable interpretation, it's a version
that was obsoleted four years ago next week.
In my
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
There never was a 7.1.4 release, so I suspect the OP meant 7.4.1
not that that speaks very much better for his software maintenance
habits. Even with the more charitable interpretation, it's a version
that was obsoleted four years ago next
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Lew wrote:
One has only to look at how many organizations still use Oracle 8, or
Java 1.3, for example, to see how conservative many shops are with
respect to upgrades. I'm not saying they should be that conservative,
but many organizations are and we must be ready to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:28:32 -0500
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience at various big-iron shops (government agencies,
large health-care organizations and the like), four years is not a
long time for enterprise software - a version often
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If some big-iron shop who is so blind to security issues that they want to
keep 7.4 on life support, they certainly can find someone to deliver such
a support agreement on a contract basis. But they shouldn't expect the
public project to keep them
Greg Smith wrote:
If some big-iron shop who is so blind to security issues that they want
to keep 7.4 on life support, they certainly can find someone to deliver
such a support agreement on a contract basis. But they shouldn't expect
the public project to keep them afloat for free, and saying
Hi,
I am reindexing my 7.1.4 postgres database. The postmaster seems to
create processes for each reindex request. Is there any way to find
out more about the processes.
ps -aef | grep postgres
yields the following, but does not tell me which table is being
reindexed or anything
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM, LARC/J.L.Shipman/jshipman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am reindexing my 7.1.4 postgres database. The postmaster seems to
create processes for each reindex request. Is there any way to find
out more about the processes.
ps -aef | grep postgres
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM, LARC/J.L.Shipman/jshipman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am reindexing my 7.1.4 postgres database.
My pgsql-fu regarding obsolete versions is obsolete. You do realize
that 7.1.x hasn't been supported for a very long time,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:40:24PM -0400, Joseph S wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heavy use of temp tables would expand pg_class, pg_type, and especially
pg_attribute, but as long as you have a decent vacuuming regimen (do you
use autovac?) they shouldn't get out of hand.
I do use autovac. Like I
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:40:24PM -0400, Joseph S wrote:
I do use autovac. Like I said they don't get really out of hand, only
up to 20 megs or so before I noticed that it was weird. The large
indexes are what tipped me off that something strange was
My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but
pg_shdepend_depender_index has a size of 19,169,280 and
pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of 49,152. When I try to reindex
the table I get:
ERROR: shared table pg_shdepend can only be reindexed in stand-alone mode
So is there any way I
Joseph S wrote:
My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but pg_shdepend_depender_index
has a size of 19,169,280 and pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of
49,152. When I try to reindex the table I get:
ERROR: shared table pg_shdepend can only be reindexed in stand-alone
mode
So
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but
pg_shdepend_depender_index has a size of 19,169,280 and
pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of 49,152.
I'd be interested to see the usage pattern that made it get like that
...
Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat
in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a
VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than
the table itself. Could it be my heavy use of temp tables?
Today I noticed
Tom Lane wrote:
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat
in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a
VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than
the table itself. Could it
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat
in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a
VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than
the table itself. Could it be my heavy
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... and when I notice that the tuplesperpage for the indexes is low (or
that the indexes are bigger then the tables themselves) I know it is
time for a VACUUM FULL and REINDEX on that table.
If you are taking the latter as a blind must-be-wrong condition,
Hi,
Lately i was searching for a way I could reindex all my keys. Primary Keys
in particular.
Really didn't find any manual that could guide me through.
Reason i wanted to reindex my PK is that whenever i insert a record in the
table, even though that record is unique, i get an error saying
In response to Harpreet Dhaliwal [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Lately i was searching for a way I could reindex all my keys. Primary Keys
in particular.
Really didn't find any manual that could guide me through.
Reason i wanted to reindex my PK is that whenever i insert a record in the
table,
is there a way to reindex a sequence?
if so how and is it in the curent
docs?
Mike
"mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is there a way to reindex a sequence?
Sequences don't have indexes, so they don't need reindexing.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet,
From: "mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is there a way to reindex a sequence?
if so how and is it in the curent docs?
Mike
Reindex a sequence? Not sure what you mean by that. You can set the value to
something else:
select setval('mysequence',12345);
If you mean compact the values used so there
31 matches
Mail list logo
