Re: Vacuuming static tables.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Daniel T(dot) Staal" <DStaal(at)usa(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuuming static tables.
Date: 2006-05-11 00:01:42
Message-ID: 22390.1147305702@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

"Daniel T. Staal" <DStaal(at)usa(dot)net> writes:
> The odd thing is that while this is a moderately complex query; three
> tables, multiple 'union's, etc, *all* the tables involved are fairly
> static. The biggest (and the one I've confirmed makes the difference when
> I vacuum it) would be having a busy week if there were ten inserts.
> Deletes are even rarer.

What about updates? Updating an existing row generates vacuumable trash...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message atsorgassa 2006-05-11 08:45:25 insert performance
Previous Message Sean Davis 2006-05-10 23:04:54 Re: error handling