Re: db grows and grows - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Martijn van Oosterhout |
---|---|
Subject | Re: db grows and grows |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20020621102724.B16040@svana.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: db grows and grows (terry@greatgulfhomes.com) |
Responses |
Re: db grows and grows
|
List | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:33:28PM -0400, terry@greatgulfhomes.com wrote: > Down side of DROP/CREATE is your shrinking script has to know the exact code > to recreate the index, which is an issue if your database is evolving, > you'll have to keep updating the script as you add tables/indexes. My script-that-makes-the-script used pg_dump to get the appropriate statement. As someone pointed out, it is also stored in plain text within the database. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Robert Treat > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:58 PM > > To: Bruce Momjian > > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] db grows and grows > > > > > > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 11:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Bjoern Metzdorf wrote: > > > > > > Yes, but the problem is that we don't have a plan on how to fix the > > > index growth problem right now, so if people want to prevent index > > > growth, reindex is the only solution. > > > > > > The TODO item says: > > > > > > * Certain indexes will not shrink, e.g. indexes on > > ever-increasing > > > columns and indexes with many duplicate keys > > > > > > but in fact that wording is misleading. >80% of index are on > > > ever-increasing columns, so it isn't really 'certain index' but more > > > accurately 'most indexes'. > > > > > > I am planning to add the reindex script to /contrib, > > document its need > > > in the maintenance docs, and add an FAQ item. If it gets > > fixed in 7.3, > > > great. If not, we will have communicated to users and > > given them the > > > tools then need. > > > > > > > Would you say the reindex command/script is the recommended way of > > dealing with the issue, rather than the create/rename method some have > > suggested? Or maybe the difference is negligible? Does either method > > have an upside in regards to the query planner statistics > > generated via > > routine vacuum analyzes? > > > > Robert Treat > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary > arithmetic and those that can't.
pgsql-general by date: