Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Matt Clark <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Date: 2003-09-17 19:54:42
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0309171353490.8026-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matt Clark wrote:

> *** THE QUESTION(S) ***
> Is there any reason for me not to run continuous sequential vacuum analyzes?
> At least for the 6 tables that see a lot of updates?
> I hear 10% of tuples updated as a good time to vac-an, but does my typical
> count of 3 indexes per table affect that?

Generally, the only time continuous vacuuming is a bad thing is when you
are I/O bound. If you are CPU bound, then continuous vacuuming is usually
acceptable.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-09-17 20:13:31 Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Previous Message Matt Clark 2003-09-17 19:40:16 Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?