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

Re: count(*) performance

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rodrigo MaderaDate: 2006-03-27 20:16:18
Subject: Large Binary Objects Middleware
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-03-27 19:35:28
Subject: Re: count(*) performance

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