Dan Field wrote:
> On 24 May 2004, at 14:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dan Field <dof(at)llgc(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>>> I have a similar problem with just one of my queries (although it isn't
>>> a sub select):
>> You really ought to vacuum and/or analyze occasionally. The EXPLAIN
>> results show that the planner hasn't got any non-default statistics
>> for any of these tables.
> Wow, thanks for that. I'd been pulling my hair out for a couple of days
> wondering where I was going wrong.
> I went from 45 second queries down to sub second query lengths after a
> simple vacuum full analyze.
> I've now added nightly and monthly cron jobs to do this for me in future.
> Out of curiosity, why is this deemed a DBA task rather than an automated
> postgres task?
> Once again, many thanks.
You have to use the pg_autovacuum demon.
Run the vacuum full and the reindex once in a week.
In response to
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: sad||Date: 2004-05-27 03:56:19|
|Subject: Re: The PostgreSQL|
|Previous:||From: Dan Field||Date: 2004-05-26 15:51:51|
|Subject: Re: Memory usage on subselect |