Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
To: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum
Date: 2007-01-09 18:02:25
Message-ID: 82d55okrim.fsf@mid.bfk.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

* Jeremy Haile:

> I'd like any performance advice, but my main concern is the amount of
> time vacuum/analyze runs and its possible impact on the overall DB
> performance. Thanks!

You could partition your data tables by date and discard old data
simply by dropping the tables. This is far more effective than
vacuuming, but obviously, this approach cannot be used in all cases
(e.g. if you need more dynamic expiry rules).

--
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Haile 2007-01-09 20:14:28 Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled
Previous Message Jeremy Haile 2007-01-09 17:26:41 High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum