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

Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal
Date: 2007-05-15 17:44:29
Message-ID: 20070515174427.GG1785@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-performance
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:43:50PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>patch - basically, I think the documentation under estimates (or
>sometimes misses) the benefit of VACUUM FULL for scans, and the
>needs of VACUUM FULL if the routine VACUUM hasn't been done
>properly since the database was put in production.

It's also possible to overestimate the benefit of vacuum full, leading 
to people vacuum full'ing almost constantly, then complaining about 
performance due to the associated overhead. I think there have been more 
people on this list whose performance problems were caused by 
unnecessary full vacs than by those whose performance problems were 
caused by insufficient full vacs.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-05-15 22:13:47
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound
Previous:From: Guillaume CottenceauDate: 2007-05-15 16:43:50
Subject: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Y SidhuDate: 2007-05-15 20:18:42
Subject: Disk Fills Up and fsck "Compresses" it
Previous:From: Drew WilsonDate: 2007-05-15 16:45:07
Subject: Re: Many to many join seems slow?

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