-Original Message-
From: Albe Laurenz [mailto:laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 1:07 PM
To: Yelai, Ramkumar IN BLR STS; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com; and...@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Re: Need help in reclaiming disk
On 09/28/12 12:36 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Yelai, Ramkumar wrote:
>7 base tables X 120 months = 840 child tables. As per your statement, If I
create these many table then it will affect the performance. But as per the
document (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-partitioning.html)
co
Yelai, Ramkumar wrote:
>> Anything exceeding a few hundred partitions is not considered a good
idea.
>> The system needs to keep track of all the tables, and query planning
for such a partitioned table
>> might be expensive.
>>
>> 1440 is probably pushing the limits, but maybe somebody with more
e
Yelai, Ramkumar wrote:
> 1.Do I need run REINDEX to reduce space or auto vacuum will handle
re indexing?
Autovacuum will not rebuild the index as REINDEX does.
It will only free index entries tht can be reused later.
> 2.Cluster, Re index and Vacuum full locks the table, Hence do we
need
Thanks Steve and Andres,
I read these articles
http://www.linuxinsight.com/optimize_postgresql_database_size.html
http://yuval.bar-or.org/blog/2010/08/sluggish-postgresql-databases-and-reindexing-indexes/
http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2009/partitioning-large-postgresql-tables-and-h
