From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Calvin <acexec(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Question regarding effects of Vacuum, Vacuum |
Date: | 2002-11-19 13:46:39 |
Message-ID: | 1037713599.83738.34.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Moving thread to pgsql-performance.
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 22:02, Adrian Calvin wrote:
> Q - If many (eg hundreds) records are deleted (purposely), those
> records get flagged for later removal. What is the best sequence of
> operations to optimize the database afterwards? Is it Vacuum,
> Re-index, then do a Vacuum Analyze.
Just run a regular vacuum once for the above. If you modify 10%+ of the
table (via single or multiple updates, deletes or inserts) then a vacuum
analyze will be useful.
Re-index when you change the tables contents a few times over. (Have
deleted or updated 30k entries in a table with 10k entries at any given
time).
General maintenance for a dataset of that size will probably simply be a
nightly vacuum, weekly vacuum analyze, and annual reindex or dump /
restore (upgrades).
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-11-19 13:47:47 | Re: Looking for a "Linux on Playstation 2" person to compile |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-19 13:42:57 | Re: char(n) to varchar or text conversion should strip |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-19 14:04:02 | Re: for/loop performance in plpgsql ? |
Previous Message | Federico /* juri */ Pedemonte | 2002-11-19 09:49:26 | Re: for/loop performance in plpgsql ? |