From: | Antoine <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: n00b autovacuum question |
Date: | 2006-03-19 12:27:29 |
Message-ID: | 92d3a4950603190427m47f5fad6k@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 18/03/06, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> wrote:
> Antoine wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have enabled the autovacuum daemon, but occasionally still get a
> > message telling me I need to run vacuum when I access a table in
> > pgadmin.
>
> pgAdmin notices a discrepancy between real rowcount and estimated
> rowcount and thus suggests to run vacuum/analyze; it won't examine
> autovacuum rules so it might warn although autovac is running ok.
>
> If you're sure autovacuum is running fine, just dismiss the message.
I guess that is my problem - I a not sure it is running fine. The
process is definitely running but I am getting lots of complaints
about performance. This probably has lots to do with crap code and not
much to do with the database but I am still searching the maintenance
avenue... We have a massive project coming up and I want to go for
Postgres (the boss wants Oracle). If I can't get my stuff together I
am not sure my arguments will stick... problem is I don't really have
the time to experiment properly.
Cheers
Antoine
--
This is where I should put some witty comment.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antoine | 2006-03-19 12:31:42 | partitioning |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2006-03-19 06:26:24 | Re: Help optimizing a slow index scan |