From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Oisin Glynn" <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM Question |
Date: | 2006-01-26 19:35:42 |
Message-ID: | 5071.71.40.140.99.1138304142.squirrel@mail.tocr.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting, then you
will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just need to ANALYSE
the table. If you use autovacuum that is exactly what it will do.
As for Reindex, I'm not entirely sure, I don't think you would benefit
from reindex because you aren't updating or deleting. Can anyone comment
on this? Is is possibile that a table with lots of inserts resulting in
lots of page splits etc could ever benifit form REINDEX?
Matt
> We have 2 tables we expect to grow by up to 50,000 rows per day each
> depending on the customer. In normal operation we will most likely never
> update or delete from these tables as they are for historical reporting.
> (Eventually we may but a limit on the amount of data and delete older than
> X months or such)
> We intend to create a number of indexes based upon the reporting search
> criteria.
>
> What would the best setup be for VACUUM, ANALYSE, REINDEX. Alot of the
> infor refers to data hanging around from deletes and updates which in
> normal course we will not do on these tables?
>
>
> Oisin
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eric E | 2006-01-26 19:41:44 | Re: Arrays |
Previous Message | Bob Pawley | 2006-01-26 19:27:11 | Fw: Arrays |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-01-26 20:44:30 | Re: VACUUM Question |
Previous Message | Oisin Glynn | 2006-01-26 19:10:45 | VACUUM Question |