| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large table update/vacuum PLEASE HELP! |
| Date: | 2002-04-16 23:38:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1935.1019000288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
> But in general, if I put this database into production, I am going to
> routinely update about 10-15% of all the rows in that table every
> month... How bad it is?
> Am I going to need a 'vacuum full' after every update? Or how often
> would it be practical to do that?
I wouldn't recommend a VACUUM FULL at all. Just do plain VACUUMs on
a regular basis, and accept the 10% or so storage overhead.
VACUUM FULL is good for the sort of situation where you've updated all
or most of the rows at one time, and now you have a factor-of-2 storage
overhead; you need to physically compact the table. But the price of
doing that is high enough that I wouldn't do it to save 10-15%.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Tkach | 2002-04-17 00:01:39 | Re: Large table update/vacuum PLEASE HELP! |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-04-16 21:27:53 | Re: Large table update/vacuum PLEASE HELP! |