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

Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?

From: "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net>
To: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Date: 2003-09-17 20:24:37
Message-ID: LFEIJBEOKGPDHCEMDGNFEECHCDAA.matt@ymogen.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> 2) Are you sure that ANALYZE is needed?   Vacuum is required
> whenever lots of
> rows are updated, but analyze is needed only when the *distribution* of
> values changes significantly.

You are right. I have a related qn in this thread about random vs. monotonic
values in indexed fields.

> 3) using PG 7.3 or less, you will also need to REINDEX these
> tables+indexes
> often (daily?).   This issue will go away in 7.4, which should
> make you an
> early adopter of 7.4.

I understand this needs an exclusive lock on the whole table, which is
simply not possible more than once a month, if that...  Workarounds/hack
suggestions are more than welcome :-)

Ta

M


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Michael AdlerDate: 2003-09-17 20:46:00
Subject: Re: inferior SCSI performance
Previous:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2003-09-17 20:21:46
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments

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