Re: more problems with count(*) on large table

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
To: Mike Charnoky <noky(at)nextbus(dot)com>
Cc: Sean Davis <sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more problems with count(*) on large table
Date: 2007-09-28 18:44:35
Message-ID: 20070928144435.320f219f.wmoran@potentialtech.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

In response to Mike Charnoky <noky(at)nextbus(dot)com>:

> The autovacuum is turned on. Since this is pg8.1, I don't know when the
> table was actually last vacuumed. I *did* run analyze on the table,
> though. Also, nothing has been deleted in this table... so vacuum
> should have no affect, right?

Updated rows also produce dead tuples that require vacuuming. If the
table is insert only, you don't need vacuum.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-09-28 18:56:36 Re: Using RETURNING with INTO inside pgsql
Previous Message Mike Charnoky 2007-09-28 18:18:24 Re: more problems with count(*) on large table