| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
| Date: | 2002-11-15 15:46:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20021115074333.H9290-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2002 at 21:36, Henrik Steffen wrote:
>
> > do you seriously think that I should vacuum frequently updated/inserted
> > tables every 120 seconds ?
>
> Its not about 120 seconds. Its about how many new and dead tuples your server
> is generating.
>
> Here is a quick summary
>
> insert: New tuple:vacuum analyse updates that statistics.
> update: Causes a dead tuple: Vacuum analyse marks dead tuple for reuse saving
> buffer space.
> delete: Causes a dead unusable tuple: Vacuum full is required to reclaim the
> space on the disk.
AFAIK, the delete line above is wrong. Deleted heap space should be able
to be reclaimed with normal vacuums within the limitations of the free
space map, etc...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-11-15 16:13:57 | Re: running query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-15 15:41:45 | Re: running query |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-15 15:59:17 | Re: Sort time |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-15 15:31:13 | Re: Sort time |