On 03/29/2011 09:04 AM, Plugge, Joe R. wrote:
Personally, provided you have the room, I would build a new table off to the side and
then migrate what you need to keep to the new table, when done, and satisfied that you
have all of the candidate rows, ranem the original to table to "x_tablename"
and rename the newly created table into place to take over.... if all is good .. simply
drop the x_tablename table.
This looks attractive but can cause issues if there are views,
foreign-keys, etc. that depend on this table.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-admin-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Nic Chidu
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:56 AM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: [ADMIN] full vacuum of a very large table
Got a situation where a 130 mil rows (137GB) table needs to be brought down in
size to 10 mil records (most recent) with the least amount of downtime.
Doing a full vacuum would be faster on:
- 120 mil rows deleted and 10 mil active (delete most of them then full
vacuum)
- 10 mil deleted and 120 mil active. (delete small batches and full vacuum
after each delete).
Any other suggestions?
The phrase "most recent" leads me to believe this is time-based data.
This might be a good time to partition your table to avoid this issue in
the future. If you are clever about it (and try it out on a test
environment), you might be able to create inherited tables off your main
table and then move the "live" data from the parent to the child in
unobtrusive sized chunks. When no live data remains in the parent table,
truncate the parent table (only).
Moving forward, set up your application/processes to put the data in to
the appropriately sized (day?, week?, month? year?) child table. When
the time comes, just archive and drop the child.
Cheers,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
