| From: | Guido Neitzer <guido(dot)neitzer(at)pharmaline(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: count(*) performance |
| Date: | 2006-03-27 19:43:43 |
| Message-ID: | 2C2F0FEF-084D-422C-A355-373CD18C38B3@pharmaline.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 27.03.2006, at 21:20 Uhr, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> Does that mean that even though autovacuum is turned on, you still
> should do a regular vacuum analyze periodically?
It seems that there are situations where autovacuum does not a really
good job.
However, in our application I have made stupid design decision which
I want to change as soon as possible. I have a "visit count" column
in one of the very large tables, so updates are VERY regular. I've
just checked and saw that autovacuum does a great job with that.
Nevertheless I have set up a cron job to do a standard vacuum every
month. I've used vacuum full only once after I did a bulk update of
about 200.000 rows ...
cug
--
PharmaLine, Essen, GERMANY
Software and Database Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rodrigo Madera | 2006-03-27 20:16:18 | Large Binary Objects Middleware |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-03-27 19:35:28 | Re: count(*) performance |