| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 19:44:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20150423194449.GI3055@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-23 15:40:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The issue is that you have to vacuum a table frequently enough to
> avoid accumulating bloat. The frequency with which you need to vacuum
> varies depending on the size of the table and how frequently it's
> updated. However, a large, heavily-updated table can take long enough
> to vacuum that, by the time you get done, it's already overdue to be
> vacuumed again. That's a problem.
Especially because the indexes are scanned fully. In many cases I've
observed the heap scans themselves being fast; but scanning hundreds
(yes) of gigabytes of indexes taking ages.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-23 19:45:59 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-23 19:40:36 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |