| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "VACUUM FULL ANALYZE" vs. Autovacuum Contention |
| Date: | 2011-07-08 17:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4E173A8E.80900@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 07/08/2011 12:46 PM, D C wrote:
> That said, it sounds like if we switched to daily "trucates" of each
> table (they can be purged entirely each day) rather than "delete
> froms", then there truly would not be any reason to use "vacuum
> full". Does that sound plausible?
That's exactly right. If you can re-arrange this data to be truncated
instead of deleted, this entire problem should go away. There is also a
nice optimization you should know about; if you do this:
BEGIN;
TRUNCATE t;
COPY t FROM ...
COMMIT;
In single-node systems (no standby slave), this can work much faster
than a normal load. It's able to skip the pg_xlog WAL writes in this
situation.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
Comprehensive and Customized PostgreSQL Training Classes:
http://www.2ndquadrant.us/postgresql-training/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-07-08 20:20:31 | Just a note about column equivalence disarming the planner |
| Previous Message | D C | 2011-07-08 16:46:59 | Re: "VACUUM FULL ANALYZE" vs. Autovacuum Contention |