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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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