| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Clarence Gardner <clarence(at)silcom(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Oleg Lebedev <oleg(dot)lebedev(at)waterford(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: slow query |
| Date: | 2003-02-24 18:45:20 |
| Message-ID: | 200302241045.20856.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert,
> Actually if you are vacuuming frequently enough, it can (and should*)
> obviate a vacuum full. Be aware that frequently enough might mean really
> frequent, for instance I have several tables in my database that update
> every row within a 15 minute timeframe, so I run a "lazy" vacuum on
> these tables every 10 minutes. This allows postgresql to reuse the space
> for these tables almost continuously so I never have to vacuum full
> them.
This would assume absolutely perfect FSM settings, and that the DB never gets
thrown off by unexpected loads. I have never been so fortunate as to work
with such a database. However, I agree that good FSM tuning and frequent
regular VACUUMs can greatly extend the period required for running FULL.
I have not found, though, that this does anything to prevent the need for
REINDEX on frequently-updated tables. How about you, Robert?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-02-24 18:51:25 | Re: slow query |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-02-24 18:39:12 | Re: slow query |