| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jason Buberel <jason(at)altosresearch(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates? |
| Date: | 2011-11-18 19:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4EC6B86D.4020307@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 18/11/11 04:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer<ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> writes:
>> On Nov 17, 2011 1:32 PM, "Tom Lane"<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If it's purely an insert-only table, such as a logging table, then in
>>> principle you only need periodic ANALYZEs and not any VACUUMs.
>> Won't a VACUUM FREEZE (or autovac equivalent) be necessary eventually, to
>> handle xid wraparound?
> Sure, but if he's continually adding new rows, I don't see much point in
> launching extra freeze operations.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Just curious...
Will the pattern of inserts be at all relevant?
For example random inserts compared to apending records. I thought that
random inserts would lead to bloat, as there would be lots of blocks far
from the optimum fill factor.
Regards,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrus | 2011-11-18 19:59:33 | How to install latest stable postgresql on Debian |
| Previous Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2011-11-18 19:55:55 | How to use like with a list |