| From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mvincent(at)cablespeed(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <wsheldah(at)lexmark(dot)com>, "Ian Barwick" <SUNGLASSESbarwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM, 24/7 availability and 7.2 |
| Date: | 2001-10-10 20:51:34 |
| Message-ID: | 00e101c151cd$5941baf0$1e51000a@mitch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> and vacuum takes just a very few seconds a day. I think I recall hearing
on
> this list of it taking a minute or three for databases several gigabytes
in
> size. For some sites this would be tolerable, for others it wouldn't.
It depends more on user activity and number/size of indexes than over all
database size from what I've seen.. In one database I have 20ish tables,
some have 70,000ish records but the whole database isn't very big -- VACUUM
takes a while because of the amount of UPDATE'd and DELETE'd records I have
every day, and the number of indexes (lots!)....
> I'm also interested to hear what the future holds for vacuum. If nothing
else,
> it couldn't hurt postgresql's public relations. :-)
>
> --Wes Sheldahl
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Allan Engelhardt | 2001-10-10 20:55:48 | Re: Sqlstatement with !=-1 fails |
| Previous Message | Mihai Gheorghiu | 2001-10-10 20:47:10 | Re: Session identifier |