i am using postgreSql 8.0.3 i've try vacuum vacuum full the
hole database but it takes too long, seems it will never be finished,
i've tried vacuum table_name and the table remains nearly the
same as isee i my PGDATA directory. is this normal? . is there
something i can do ?On 8/25/05, Bruno Wolff
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:38:03 -0400,
jose fuenmayor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am using postgreSql 8.0.3 i've try vacuum vacuum full the hole database
but it takes too long, seems it will never be finished, i've tried vacuum
table_name and the table remains nearly the same as isee i my
i waited like 11 hours and it doesn't finish, where is the FSM setting postgreSQL.conf?On 8/30/05, Bruno Wolff III
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:38:03 -0400,jose fuenmayor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am using postgreSql 8.0.3 i've try vacuum vacuum full the hole database but
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:26:16 -0400,
jose fuenmayor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i waited like 11 hours and it doesn't finish, where is the FSM setting
postgreSQL.conf?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/runtime-config.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-RESOURCE
---(end of
I read and have seen that when a table has more than 1GB it is divided
in several files with the names of inode,inode.1,inode.2,inode.3, etc.
I have a table of 1.3 GB (9.618.118 rows,13 fields) it is divided in
that way as i see on /PGDATA/base but each file has the same size i
mean
table inode
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:52:35 -0400,
jose fuenmayor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The size of the table is 3 times bigger than, for instance Visual Fox
Pro dbf's? since is there fisically three times.
Have you been vacuuming properly? It is possible you have a lot of dead
tuples in the
Hi Chris,
If you're running VACUUM often enough, then there's nothing wrong, and
nothing to be done. You're simply observing how PostgreSQL handles
large tables.
Wrong. I have a big table - running VACUUM the first time needs as long
as I run it after the VACUUM has finished. There are
