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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-performance by date

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

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