Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?
Date
Msg-id 2094.1321507874@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?  (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>)
Responses Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?  (Jason Buberel <jason@altosresearch.com>)
Re: Is it ever necessary to vacuum a table that only gets inserts/updates?  (Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>)
List pgsql-general
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> On 11/16/11 4:24 PM, Jason Buberel wrote:
>> Just wondering if there is ever a reason to vacuum a very large table
>> (> 1B rows) containing rows that never has rows deleted.

> no updates either?

To clarify: in Postgres, an "update" means an insert and a delete.
So unless you mean that this table is insert-only, you certainly
still need vacuum.

> you still want to do a vacuum analyze every so often to update the
> statistics used by the planner.

If it's purely an insert-only table, such as a logging table, then in
principle you only need periodic ANALYZEs and not any VACUUMs.

VACUUM could still be worthwhile though, because (a) it will set commit
hint bits on all pages and (b) it will set visibility-map bits on all
pages.  An ANALYZE would only do those things for the random sample of
pages that it visits.  While neither of those things are critical, they
do offload work from future queries that would otherwise have to do that
work in-line.  So if you've got a maintenance window where the database
isn't answering queries anyway, it could be worthwhile to run a VACUUM
just to get those bits set.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Yan Chunlu
Date:
Subject: how could duplicate pkey exist in psql?
Next
From: Siva Palanisamy
Date:
Subject: How to lock and unlock table in postgresql