Re: Vacuum full

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Andrew Bartley <abartley(at)evolvosystems(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum full
Date: 2002-11-06 02:02:19
Message-ID: 3DC8782B.A7979D94@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi Andrew,

How much activity do you have on these archive type of tables? If you
run SELECT queries on them a lot, and you're often updating or deleting
rows (am specifically not meaning INSERTing new rows) then it might be
worthwhile VACUUMing them.

Otherwise, it looks like you might not gain much from doing so. :)

As a curiosity question, when you VACUUM, do you use the ANALYZE option?

As a second curiosity question, when you mention PostgreSQL 7.2, do you
mean 7.2 literally or 7.2.3? 7.2.3 is the recommended production
version due to bugs having been found in 7.2.2 and 7.2.1.

Hope that helps.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Andrew Bartley wrote:
>
> We are using postgres 7.2

Can anyone tell me what the ramifications are if I do not vacuum full
the whole DB?

Say if I was to selectively vacuum all of the PG tables, and only some
of the Application tables.

We have a number of tables that are effectively archive type tables.
They are large, but do not change. If

I was to vacuum these tables on a regular basis, it would add a
significant portion of time to the housekeeping process.

Thanks

Andrew

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

In response to

  • Vacuum full at 2002-11-06 01:48:06 from Andrew Bartley

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Bartley 2002-11-06 02:33:19 Re: Vacuum full
Previous Message Andrew Bartley 2002-11-06 01:48:06 Vacuum full