On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm confused. The log trace you showed us before appeared to be from
>>> a non-FULL vacuum, but here you're saying it's VACUUM FULL. Which is
>>> it ... or did you change?
>
>> Yes, first time I tried vacuum from withing psql, next time I decided
>> to run vacuumdb and seems changed option.
>
> Um. Well, a VACUUM FULL is going to build in-memory data structures
> that represent *all* of the usable free space in a table. I don't
> actually think that VACUUM FULL is useful on an enormous table ... you
> want to keep after it with routine plain VACUUMs, instead.

ok. I'll try without FULL, but if memory does not fail me postmaster was
also greedy. Let's see

>
> Another possibility is to use CLUSTER or a rewriting ALTER TABLE to
> shrink the space, but be aware that this requires a transient second
> copy of the table and indexes.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Regards,
Oleg
__________________________________________________ ___________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq