Re: postgresql storage and performance questions
От | Brad Nicholson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgresql storage and performance questions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1195585982.5362.5.camel@bnicholson-desktop обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgresql storage and performance questions ("Josh Harrison" <joshques@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 13:04 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 11:13 AM, Brad Nicholson <bnichols@ca.afilias.info> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 07:22 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote: > > > > > There were a couple of things we noted. > > > 1. Tablesize twice as much than oracle-- Im not sure if postgres null > > > columns has any overhead since we have lots of null columns in our > > > tables.Does postgresql has lots of overhead for null columns? > > > > Did you by any chance have an aborted load of the data? If you load in > > a table, and that load fails or does not commit, it will still occupy > > the space until you vacuum. If you try to load again, the table will be > > twice the size. > > > > If you want to compact the physical space the table occupies, you can > > try running VACUUM FULL on it, and possibly a redindex afterwards. This > > will bring the physical space down to the minimum. Both of these > > operations will lock out access to the tables though. > I ran vacuum full on this table already. I haven't re-indexed it. But > this will not affect the table size...right...since indexes are stored > separately? You are correct about the indexes. -- Brad Nicholson 416-673-4106 Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: