> Hi Tomas,
>
> Tomas wrote:
> We've decided to remove unneeded 'old' data, which means removing about
> 99.999% of rows from tables A, C and D (about 2 GB of data). At the
> beginning, the B table (containing aggregated from A, C and D) was emptied
> (dropped and created) and filled in with curre
Hi Tomas,
Tomas wrote:
We've decided to remove unneeded 'old' data, which means removing about
99.999% of rows from tables A, C and D (about 2 GB of data). At the
beginning, the B table (containing aggregated from A, C and D) was emptied
(dropped and created) and filled in with current data. Then,
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Huh, I didn't suggest to dump/reload. I suggested CLUSTER. You need to
> > apply it only to tables where you have lots of dead tuples, which IIRC
> > are A, C and D.
>
> Sorry, I should read more carefully. Will clustering a table according
> to one index solve problems w
> Huh, I didn't suggest to dump/reload. I suggested CLUSTER. You need to
> apply it only to tables where you have lots of dead tuples, which IIRC
> are A, C and D.
Sorry, I should read more carefully. Will clustering a table according
to one index solve problems with all the indexes on the table
> I guess you're right. I forgot to mention there are 12 composed indexes
> on the largest (and not deleted) table B, having about 14.000.000 rows
> and 1 GB of data. I'll try to dump/reload the database ...
Aaargh, the problem probably is not caused by the largest table, as it
was dropped, filled
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Probably the indexes are bloated after the vacuum full. I think the
> > best way to get rid of the "fat" is to recreate both tables and indexes
> > anew. For this the best tool would be to CLUSTER the tables on some
> > index, probably the primary key. This will be much f
> Probably the indexes are bloated after the vacuum full. I think the
> best way to get rid of the "fat" is to recreate both tables and indexes
> anew. For this the best tool would be to CLUSTER the tables on some
> index, probably the primary key. This will be much faster than
> VACUUMing the t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) drop, create and fill table B (aggregated data from A, C, D)
>> 2) copy 'old' data from A, C and D to A_old, C_old a D_old
>> 3) delete old data from A, C, D
>> 4) dump data from A_old, C_old and D_old
>> 5) truncate tables A, C, D
>>
Tomas Vondra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) drop, create and fill table B (aggregated data from A, C, D)
> 2) copy 'old' data from A, C and D to A_old, C_old a D_old
> 3) delete old data from A, C, D
> 4) dump data from A_old, C_old and D_old
> 5) truncate tables A, C, D
> 6) vacuum full analyze
Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
> Then
> these data were deleted from A, C, D and tables A_old, C_old and D_old
> were dumped, truncated and all the tables were vacuumed (with FULL
> ANALYZE options). So the procedure was this
>
> 1) drop, create and fill table B (aggregated data from A, C, D)
> 2) copy
10 matches
Mail list logo
