Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled

Good advice on the partitioning idea. I may have to restructure some of
my queries, since some of them query across the whole range - but it may
be a much more performant solution. How is the performance when
querying across a set of partitioned tables vs. querying on a single
table with all rows? This may be a long term idea I could tackle, but
is probably not feasible for my current time-frame.

Does my current approach of disabling autovacuum and manually vacuuming
once-an-hour sound like a good idea, or would I likely have better
results by auto-vacuuming and turning row-level stats back on?

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:02:25 +0100, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
said:
> * Jeremy Haile:
>
> > I'd like any performance advice, but my main concern is the amount of
> > time vacuum/analyze runs and its possible impact on the overall DB
> > performance. Thanks!
>
> You could partition your data tables by date and discard old data
> simply by dropping the tables. This is far more effective than
> vacuuming, but obviously, this approach cannot be used in all cases
> (e.g. if you need more dynamic expiry rules).
>
> --
> Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
> Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99