| From: | "Oisin Glynn" <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | VACUUM Question |
| Date: | 2006-01-26 19:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | 002a01c622ac$41555af0$1f12fea9@homisco.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
We have 2 tables we expect to grow by up to 50,000 rows per day each depending on the customer. In normal operation we will most likely never update or delete from these tables as they are for historical reporting. (Eventually we may but a limit on the amount of data and delete older than X months or such)
We intend to create a number of indexes based upon the reporting search criteria.
What would the best setup be for VACUUM, ANALYSE, REINDEX. Alot of the infor refers to data hanging around from deletes and updates which in normal course we will not do on these tables?
Oisin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-26 19:14:39 | Re: How to implement nested transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-26 19:06:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-01-26 19:35:42 | Re: VACUUM Question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-26 19:06:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo |