From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
Cc: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Help me recovering data |
Date: | 2005-02-18 15:14:19 |
Message-ID: | 200502181014.19322.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 17 February 2005 07:47, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
> > Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> >> We do ~4000 txn/minute so in 6 month you are screewd up...
> >
> > Sure, but if you ran without vacuuming for 6 months, wouldn't you notice
> > the
> > huge slowdowns from all those dead tuples before that?
>
> I would think that only applies to databases where UPDATE and DELETE are
> done often. What about databases that are 99.999% inserts? A DBA lightly
> going over the docs may not even know that vacuum needs to be run.
>
Yup... I don't vacuum a least a 100 of the tables in my schema cause they are
continuous insert with big deletions once every 6 months or so. Generally
speaking it isn't worth the performance hit to vacuum these big tables
regularly, so I only do it when I have to.... like every six months when wrap
around gets close.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-02-18 15:37:10 | Re: Help me recovering data |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-02-18 15:11:18 | Re: win32 performance - fsync question |