Steve Crawford wrote: > I'm in the process of archiving data on one of my PG machines. After > backing up the data, I delete the old records and then run a "vacuum > full" on each table. > > I'm vacuuming the first table now and it is taking much longer than I > expected (I'm now past the 2-hour mark). Some info: > > Version: 8.1.2 > On-disk table size: ~1.9GB > Records deleted from the table: 10,290,892 (~60% of records) > Physical memory: 2GB > Connection maintenance_work_mem: 1GB > Table indexes: 7 > CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz > Disk: 2x200GB SATA as RAID-1 using 3-ware card > > The vacuum full is the only significant load on the server at the moment > (PG or otherwise). IO is probably the bottleneck as CPU is running near > 50% idle and 40% wait-state with PG using in the 5-15% range. You could try CLUSTER instead of VACUUM FULL, as I think it should be faster. And the indexes will be devoid of any bloat, which will be a nice side effect. I wonder, though, if you set maintenance_work_mem too high and are causing the OS to swap? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
