From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Reece Hart <reece(at)in-machina(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More Praise for 7.4RC2 |
Date: | 2003-11-13 22:25:44 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0311131524530.1239-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Oh, another good choice for embedding is sleepycat's berkely db database,
or just plain old db style (gdbm lib, or ndbm, or any of a few others)
hash databases. Simple, non-relational, and fast.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Reece Hart wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > Do you vacuum full every so often? If not, and if you've been overflowing
> > > your fsm, then your tables will just grow without shrinking.
> > > Also, index growth could be a problem.
> >
> >
> > Hmm. I didn't realize that I needed to vacuum full as well -- I thought
> > vacuum was sufficient for performance gains, and that full reclaimed
> > space but didn't result in significant performance gains. I have
> > reindexed infrequently, but since that locks the table I didn't do that
> > (or vacuum full) often. I guess I should try out pg_autovacuum, but I
> > think that full vacuums only to prevent XID wraparound (if age>1.5B
> > transactions), but not for compaction (is this correct?).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-11-13 22:38:47 | Re: simple question |
Previous Message | Josué Maldonado | 2003-11-13 22:19:26 | Re: Determine if a string is digit |