From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Date: | 2005-06-17 11:58:53 |
Message-ID: | 42B2BAFD.6000001@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I've personally seen at least a dozen user requests for "autovacuum
>> in the backend", and had this conversation about 1,100 times:
>>
>> NB: "After a week, my database got really slow."
>> Me: "How often are you running VACUUM ANALYZE?"
>> NB: "Running what?"
>
>
> Can't argue that except... RTFM ;). I am not saying it doesn't have a
> validity. I am just saying that if you actually pay attention to
> PostgreSQL and maintain it, you don't need it ;)
I think everyone on this list would agree with you. The only reason I
think the newbie protection is important (and I don't think it's the
most important reason for autovacuum) is that perception is reality to
some extent. Valid or not we still suffer from a reputation of being
more complicated and slower than mysql. Steps towards reducing /
eliminating that perception can only be good for us as I think lots of
developers make their first database decision based solely on their
perceptions and then just stick with what they know.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-17 12:04:35 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Previous Message | Jacob Atzen | 2005-06-17 11:52:08 | Backing up multiple databases |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-17 12:04:35 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
Previous Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2005-06-17 10:06:50 | 7.4.8 compilation failure on Fedora Core 4 |