Re: perfromance impact of vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: perfromance impact of vacuum
Date
Msg-id 20030715200417.GE28141@libertyrms.info
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: perfromance impact of vacuum  ("Jay O'Connor" <joconnor@cybermesa.com>)
Responses Re: perfromance impact of vacuum  ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:04:53AM -0700, Jay O'Connor wrote:
> Actually what I meant is how long the vacuum runs.  We're going to have a
> big database (few TB projected, but I don't know where those numbers come
> from) and I'm trying to ausage concerns that vacuuming will impact
> performance significantly.

It depends very heavily on your expired-tuple percentage.  But it is
still not free to vacuum a large table.  And vacuum full always scans
the whole table.

Remember that vacuum operates on tables, which automatically means
that it does nasty things to your cache.

The stand-alone analyse can be helpful here.  It only does
samples of the tables under analysis, so you don't face the same I/O
load.  If all you're doing is adding to a table, it may be worth
investigating.  Keep in mind, though, you still need to vacuum every
2 billion transactions.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Tkach
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] INSTEAD rule bug?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] INSTEAD rule bug?