Re: More Praise for 7.4RC2

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?).

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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