Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks
Date: 2000-01-06 17:54:28
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0001061352500.18498-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Dustin Sallings wrote:

> Untrue, vacuum is *extremely* important for updating statistics.
> If you have a lot of data in a table, and you have never vacuumed, you
> might as well not have any indices. It'd be nice if you could seperate
> the stat update from the storage reclaim. Actually, it'd be nice if you
> could reuse storage, so that an actual vacuum wouldn't be necessary unless
> you just wanted to free up disk space you might end up using again anyway.

Okay, my understanding is that a vacuum does a 'cleanup', while a vacuum
analyze does a cleanup *and* stats...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dustin Sallings 2000-01-06 18:04:19 Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks
Previous Message Karl DeBisschop 2000-01-06 17:40:09 Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3