On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:06:47AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote:
> So, the difference in performance was around 4% slower.
>
> I'd hardly consider that a big hit against the database.
>
> Note that in every test I've made up and run, the difference is at most 5%
> with vacuumdb -z running continuously in the background. Big text fields,
> lots of math, lots of fks, etc...
Also, it's important to remember that you may see a considerable
improvement in efficiency of some queries if you vacuum often, (it's
partly dependent on the turnover in your database -- if it never
changes, you don't need to vacuum often). So a 5% hit in regular
performance may be worth it over the long haul, if certain queries
are way cheaper to run. (That is, while you may get 4% slower
performance overall, if the really slow queries are much faster, the
fast queries running slower may well be worth it. In my case,
certainly, I think it is.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
