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

Re: Vacuuming static tables.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Daniel T(dot) Staal" <DStaal(at)usa(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuuming static tables.
Date: 2006-05-11 00:01:42
Message-ID: 22390.1147305702@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
"Daniel T. Staal" <DStaal(at)usa(dot)net> writes:
> The odd thing is that while this is a moderately complex query; three
> tables, multiple 'union's, etc, *all* the tables involved are fairly
> static.  The biggest (and the one I've confirmed makes the difference when
> I vacuum it) would be having a busy week if there were ten inserts. 
> Deletes are even rarer.

What about updates?  Updating an existing row generates vacuumable trash...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: atsorgassaDate: 2006-05-11 08:45:25
Subject: insert performance
Previous:From: Sean DavisDate: 2006-05-10 23:04:54
Subject: Re: error handling

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