Re: Database size growing over time and leads to performance impact

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carey <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dont "VACUUM FULL", its not helping you, and is being removed in newer versions.
>>> 
>> 
>> Off topic:  How is that going to work?  CLUSTER doesn't work on tables without an index.  I would love to be able to CLUSTER on some column set that doesn't necessarily have an index.
> 
> I believe the new VF implementation just rewrites the data in the same
> physical order as it was in previously, but without the dead space.
> So it's sort of like cluster-by-no-index-at-all.
> 

Still off topic:

Will CLUSTER/VF respect FILLFACTOR in 9.0?

As far as I can tell in 8.4, it does not.  CLUSTER on a table with FILLFACTOR=100, then alter the table to FILLFACTOR=90, cluster again -- the file size reported by \dt+ is the same.  This is a fairly big performance issue since it means that HOT doesn't function well on a table just CLUSTERed.

> ...Robert


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux