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

Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Date: 2007-09-13 05:58:10
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0709130130390.8547@westnet.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: El-LotsoDate: 2007-09-13 07:20:13
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-09-13 03:21:13
Subject: Re: pg_dump blocking create database?

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