On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 17:38 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I bet there is no 'critical' length - this is just another case of
> index
> scan vs. seqscan. The efficiency depends on the size of the table /
> row,
> amount of data in the table, variability of the column used in the IN
> clause, et
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:58 +0200, Miernik wrote:
> I have a similar, but different situation, where I TRUNCATE a table
> with
> 60k rows every hour, and refill it with new rows. Would it be better
> (concerning bloat) to just DROP the table every hour, and recreate it,
> then to TRUNCATE it? Or d
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> Huh? Vacuum doesn't block writes.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Of course, you are correct. I was thinking of Vacuum full, which is
recommended for use when you're deleting the majority of rows in a
table.
http://ww
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:16 +0100, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>
> I believe this SQL snippet could cause data loss, because there is a
> period during which writes can be made to the old table that will not
> be
> copied to the new table.
It could indeed cause data loss.
> On a side note, I wou
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 10:02 -0500, Dave North wrote:
> Thank you for the suggestion..much appreciated. Alas, I don't think
> this will be possible without a change to the application but it's a
> good idea nonetheless.
Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
If I were in your situation (not having acce
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 18:57 +0200, Franck Routier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have problems with my database becoming huge in size (around 150 GB
> right now, and 2/3 for only three tables, each having around 30 millions
> tuples. Space is spent mainly on indices.).
>
> I have a lot of multi-column varch
