Re: Index performance

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index performance
Date: 2008-01-04 18:11:08
Message-ID: 20080104181108.GM821@crankycanuck.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:07AM +0200, Brian Modra wrote:
> Thanks, I think you have me on the right track. I'm testing a vacuum
> analyse now to see how long it takes, and then I'll set it up to
> automatically run every night (so that it has a chance to complete
> before about 6am.)

Note that "VACUUM ANALYSE" and "ANALYSE" are not identical: the former also
performs vacuum. On a table that is not updating that often but that is
expanding rapidly, you may not need that extra I/O. Analyse on its own can
perform just the statistical sampling. If you're not creating dead tuples
with UPDATE, DELETE, or ROLLBACK, that might be enough most of the time.

A

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2008-01-04 18:16:13 OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2008-01-04 18:06:04 Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps