| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com (Jackson, DeJuan) |
| Cc: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, dave(at)turbocat(dot)de, ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| Date: | 1999-01-07 17:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | 199901071749.MAA07078@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
> With MVCC an occasional 'vacuum analyze' should only be noticed from the
> performance improvements. As far as I can tell most of the work done by
> an analyze is in reading the table data. If you make sure to write the
> new information at the end of the transaction you only lock the indexes
> for the amount of time it takes to write them.
>
> I see a 'vacuum analyze' being less of a problem than 'vacuum'.
> Any of you experts can contradict my assumptions.
The problem is that vacuum analyze does both vacuum and analyze.
Analyze takes so long, we figured we might as well vacuum too. Maybe we
need to change that.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-01-07 17:54:11 | Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-01-07 17:47:34 | Re: [DOCS] Upcoming Attractions, web site |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-07 18:17:09 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |
| Previous Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-07 17:31:56 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long |