| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index performance |
| Date: | 2008-01-04 18:11:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20080104181108.GM821@crankycanuck.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:07AM +0200, Brian Modra wrote:
> Thanks, I think you have me on the right track. I'm testing a vacuum
> analyse now to see how long it takes, and then I'll set it up to
> automatically run every night (so that it has a chance to complete
> before about 6am.)
Note that "VACUUM ANALYSE" and "ANALYSE" are not identical: the former also
performs vacuum. On a table that is not updating that often but that is
expanding rapidly, you may not need that extra I/O. Analyse on its own can
perform just the statistical sampling. If you're not creating dead tuples
with UPDATE, DELETE, or ROLLBACK, that might be enough most of the time.
A
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-01-04 18:16:13 | OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-01-04 18:06:04 | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |