From: | Jason Long <mailing(dot)lists(at)octgsoftware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum |
Date: | 2010-11-08 21:54:11 |
Message-ID: | 1289253251.2646.185.camel@localhost.fx60 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:28 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/08/10 10:50 AM, Jason Long wrote:
> > I currently have Postgres 9.0 install after an upgrade. My database is
> > relatively small, but complex. The dump is about 90MB.
> >
> > Every night when there is no activity I do a full vacuum, a reindex, and
> > then dump a nightly backup.
> >
> > Is this optimal with regards to performance? autovacuum is set to the
> > default.
>
>
> if you have frequently updated tables that are accessed mostly from
> their primary key, it may pay to CLUSTER those tables on said index
> rather than doing the full vacuum.
>
> VACUUM FULL is usually not recommended, btw.
>
> Also, if you have tables that get lots of updates that only affect data
> and not indexed columns, setting a FILL FACTOR of, say, 70 or 80 (its in
> %) might help with performance by better facilitating HOT updates (HOT
> is a internal feature added to pg 8.3 to speed up these sorts of updates)
>
>
>
Just so I understand, why is full vacuum not recommended?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-11-08 21:58:34 | Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum |
Previous Message | Jason Long | 2010-11-08 21:53:26 | Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum |