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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-docs by date

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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

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