yeah , This is the best solution, Where you dont need much resources and DB to do more work, You will save a lot here.
Just simple inserts from base table to new table with your condition, verify , rename base table to some other, new table to base tablename. analyze this table. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Plugge, Joe R. <jrplu...@west.com> 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. > > -----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? > > Thanks, > > Nic > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make > changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin >
