From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chester Kustarz <chester(at)arbor(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
Date: | 2003-11-20 19:20:24 |
Message-ID: | 6000.1069356024@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Chester Kustarz <chester(at)arbor(dot)net> writes:
> i have some tables which are insert only. i do not want to vacuum them
> because there are never any dead tuples in them and the vacuum grows the
> indexes.
Those claims cannot both be true. In any case, plain vacuum cannot grow
the indexes --- only a VACUUM FULL that moves a significant number of
rows could cause index growth.
> vacuum is to reclaim dead tuples. this means it depends on update and
> delete. analyze depends on data values/distribution. this means it depends on
> insert, update, and delete. thus the dependencies are slightly different
> between the 2 operations, an so you can come up with use-cases that
> justify running either more frequently.
Agreed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-11-20 19:38:57 | Re: 4 Clause license? |
Previous Message | Troels Arvin | 2003-11-20 19:16:44 | Re: 7.4: CHAR padding inconsistency |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chester Kustarz | 2003-11-20 20:54:24 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
Previous Message | Chester Kustarz | 2003-11-20 18:48:21 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |