From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Martin A(dot) Marques" <martin(at)math(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar>, bpalmer <bpalmer(at)crimelabs(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why vacuum? |
Date: | 2000-12-14 17:38:55 |
Message-ID: | 20001214093855.B4589@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> [001214 09:30] wrote:
> "Martin A. Marques" wrote:
> >
> > El Mié 13 Dic 2000 16:41, bpalmer escribió:
> > > I noticed the other day that one of my pg databases was slow, so I ran
> > > vacuum on it, which brought a question to mind: why the need? I looked
> > > at my oracle server and we aren't doing anything of the sort (that I can
> > > find), so why does pg need it? Any info?
> >
> > I know nothing about Oracle, but I can tell you that Informix has an update
> > statistics, which I don't know if it's similar to vacuum, but....
> > What vacuum does is clean the database from rows that were left during
> > updates and deletes, non the less, the tables get shrincked, so searches get
> > faster.
> >
>
> While I would like Postgres to perform statistics, one and a while, on
> it own. I like vacuum in general.
>
> I would rather trade unused disk space for performace. The last thing
> you need during high loads is the database thinking that it is time to
> clean up.
Even worse is having to scan a file that has grown 20x the size
because you havne't vacuum'd in a while.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniele Orlandi | 2000-12-14 18:04:59 | Re: AW: Why vacuum? |
Previous Message | Daniele Orlandi | 2000-12-14 17:24:26 | Re: Why vacuum? |