Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Matthew Schumacher <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0
Date: 2005-07-29 21:01:57
Message-ID: 19405.1122670917@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 09:37 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>> How often should this table be vacuumed, every 5 minutes?

> I would be tempted to vacuum after each e-mail, in this case.

Perhaps the bulk of the transient states should be done in a temp table,
and only write into a real table when you're done?  Dropping a temp
table is way quicker than vacuuming it ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew SchumacherDate: 2005-07-29 21:48:00
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0
Previous:From: Matthew SchumacherDate: 2005-07-29 20:30:20
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group