Hm. Okay, so just to be perfectly clear, my database with all its INSERTs,
but no DELETEs or UPDATEs should not be VACUUMing anyway, so disabling
auto-vacuum is redundant (and possibly hazardous).
FWIW, I did notice a speed increase after disabling auto-vacuum on several
of my tables though that could have been a coincidence. Is there any way
that these tables could have been getting vacuumed (or some thing else)
despite the fact that they are not receiving updates or deletes? Or must
that have been a coincidence?
While we're on the subject, I welcome any pointers with regard to tuning a
database that is being used in this way. Any cache sizes I should be
messing with? Etc.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 23 February 2012 17:35, Alessandro Gagliardi <alessandro(at)path(dot)com>
> > I should have been more clear. I virtually never delete or do updates,
> but I
> > insert a lot. So the table does change quite a bit, but only in one
> > direction.
> The same thing applies. VACUUM cleans up dead tuples, which INSERTs
> don't create, only DELETE and UPDATEs do.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Steve Crawford||Date: 2012-02-23 18:01:03|
|Subject: Re: set autovacuum=off|
|Previous:||From: Greg Spiegelberg||Date: 2012-02-23 17:56:14|
|Subject: Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database|