Re: Autovacuum in the backend

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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