Sean Chen wrote:
> Now from what you mentioned below, do you know what's the cost of
> postgres requesting new disk space from OS?
Depending on your OS and its version, your file system, your mount
options, and your disk subsystem (and its firmware revision), there
could be various effects --
hi, thank you for the reply.
I ran a number of tests to try to make sense of this.
When I ran with or without vacuum, the number of disk io operations,
cache operations etc. gathered from pg_stat table for the insertions
are pretty much the same.
So I don't see vacuum reduce disk io operations.
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Sean Chen wrote:
>> 1, delete records ...
>> 2, insert records ...
>>
>> if I add "vacuum analyze" in-between this two steps, will it help
>> on the performance on the insert?
> Assuming there are no long-running transactions which would still be
> able to see the de
Sean Chen wrote:
> 1, delete records ...
> 2, insert records ...
>
> if I add "vacuum analyze" in-between this two steps, will it help
> on the performance on the insert?
Assuming there are no long-running transactions which would still be
able to see the deleted rows, a VACUUM between those
Hi, I'm curious -- does "vacuum analyze e.g. table1" improve
performance on "insert into table1 ...". I understand the vacuum
analyze helps out the query -- select, etc., but just not quite sure
on insert.
Specifically, I'm doing the following.
1, delete records ...
2, insert records ...
if I ad
"Steve Oualline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Question: I have a big table with 120,000,000 records.
> Let's assume that I DELETE 4,000,000 records, VACUUM FULL, and REINDEX.
> Now I have the same table, but with 240,000,000 records.
> I DELETE 8,000,000 records, VACUUM FULL, and REINDEX.
> Shou
Title: VACUUM Performance
Question: I have a big table with 120,000,000 records.
Let's assume that I DELETE 4,000,000 records, VACUUM FULL, and REINDEX.
Now I have the same table, but with 240,000,000 records.
I DELETE 8,000,000 records, VACUUM FULL, and REINDEX.
Should the second
Alan Stange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do a truss on the process and see the output below looping over and
> over. Note the constant opening and closing of the file 42064889.3.
> Why the open/close cycle as opposed to caching the file descriptor
> somewhere?
This is probably a "blind writ
Hello all,
I have a question/observation about vacuum performance. I'm running
Solaris 9, pg 7.4.1.
The process in questions is doing a vacuum:
bash-2.05$ /usr/ucb/ps auxww | grep 4885
fiasco4885 19.1 3.7605896592920 ?O 19:29:44 91:38 postgres:
fiasco fiasco [local] VACUUM
I do a
