Re: VACUUM Question

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM Question
Date: 2006-01-26 21:14:45
Message-ID: 603bjan12y.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

matthew(at)zeut(dot)net ("Matthew T. O'Connor") writes:
> If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting,
> then you will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just
> need to ANALYSE the table. If you use autovacuum that is exactly
> what it will do.

"Never" is a pretty long time...

You need a VACUUM every 2^31 transactions, but since there needs to be
such a vacuum for the whole database, that one will do...

> As for Reindex, I'm not entirely sure, I don't think you would benefit
> from reindex because you aren't updating or deleting. Can anyone comment
> on this? Is is possibile that a table with lots of inserts resulting in
> lots of page splits etc could ever benifit form REINDEX?

I could imagine a CLUSTER doing some good, and if that's the case,
REINDEX could have some favorable results. But you'd better have a
real specific model as to why that would be...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big*
RAMdisk!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eric B. Ridge 2006-01-26 21:19:34 "xmin" system column
Previous Message Tino Wildenhain 2006-01-26 21:09:34 Re: Arrays

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-01-26 21:31:09 Re: -X flag in pg_dump
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-01-26 21:12:01 Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess