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

Re: count(*) performance

From: Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Gábriel Ákos" <akos(dot)gabriel(at)i-logic(dot)hu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Date: 2006-03-27 19:20:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Does that mean that even though autovacuum is turned on, you still  
should do a regular vacuum analyze periodically?


Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 |  brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com

ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
Calgary, AB  T2G 0V9

On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote:

> Gabriel,
> On 3/27/06 10:05 AM, "Gábriel Ákos" <akos(dot)gabriel(at)i-logic(dot)hu> wrote:
>> That gave me an idea. I thought that autovacuum is doing it right,  
>> but I
>> issued a vacuum full analyze verbose , and it worked all the day.
>> After that I've tweaked memory settings a bit too (more fsm_pages)
> Oops! I replied to your disk speed before I saw this.
> The only thing is - you probably don't want to do a "vacuum full", but
> rather a simple "vacuum" should be enough.
> - Luke
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2006-03-27 19:21:38
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Previous:From: george youngDate: 2006-03-27 18:47:33
Subject: simple join uses indexes, very slow

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