Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Index performance

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index performance
Date: 2008-01-04 18:11:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:07AM +0200, Brian Modra wrote:
> Thanks, I think you have me on the right track. I'm testing a vacuum
> analyse now to see how long it takes, and then I'll set it up to
> automatically run every night (so that it has a chance to complete
> before about 6am.)

Note that "VACUUM ANALYSE" and "ANALYSE" are not identical: the former also
performs vacuum.  On a table that is not updating that often but that is
expanding rapidly, you may not need that extra I/O.  Analyse on its own can
perform just the statistical sampling.  If you're not creating dead tuples
with UPDATE, DELETE, or ROLLBACK, that might be enough most of the time.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2008-01-04 18:16:13
Subject: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-01-04 18:06:04
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group