Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem

On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Greg Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I
>> think a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing
>> people doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it's as
>> much because of the way the docs represent vacuum full as anything.
>
> I agree you shouldn't start thinking in terms of how to fix the
> existing documentation. I'd suggest instead writing a tutorial
> leading someone through what they need to know about their tables
> first and then going into how vacuum works based on that data.
>
> As an example, people throw around terms like "index bloat" and
> "dead tuples" when talking about vacuuming. The tutorial I'd like
> to see somebody write would start by explaining those terms and
> showing how to measure them--preferably with a good and bad example
> to contrast. The way these terms are thrown around right now, I
> don't expect newcomers to understand either the documentation or
> the advice people are giving them; I think it's shooting over their
> heads and what's needed are some walkthroughs. Another example I'd
> like to see thrown in there is what it looks like when you don't
> have enough FSM slots.

Isn't that the point of the documentation? I mean, if the existing,
official manual has been demonstrated (through countless mailing list
help requests) to not sufficiently explain a given topic, shouldn't
it be revised? One thing that might help is a hyperlinked glossary
so that people reading through the documentation can go straight to
the postgres definition of dead tuple, index bloat, etc.

Erik Jones

Software Developer | Emma®
erik(at)myemma(dot)com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com