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

Re: autovacuum: recommended?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz, "Tobias Brox" <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Date: 2007-11-19 15:23:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the  
> descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are  
> what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a  
> separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make the main table  
> much easier to vacuum, as well as reducing the impact of the high  
> churn rate.

Uh, you do realize that the TOAST mechanism does that pretty much

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jean-David BeyerDate: 2007-11-19 15:46:42
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Previous:From: Bill MoranDate: 2007-11-19 13:51:42
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group