Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Matt Clark
Subject Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Date
Msg-id LFEIJBEOKGPDHCEMDGNFEECHCDAA.matt@ymogen.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-performance
> 2) Are you sure that ANALYZE is needed?   Vacuum is required
> whenever lots of
> rows are updated, but analyze is needed only when the *distribution* of
> values changes significantly.

You are right. I have a related qn in this thread about random vs. monotonic
values in indexed fields.

> 3) using PG 7.3 or less, you will also need to REINDEX these
> tables+indexes
> often (daily?).   This issue will go away in 7.4, which should
> make you an
> early adopter of 7.4.

I understand this needs an exclusive lock on the whole table, which is
simply not possible more than once a month, if that...  Workarounds/hack
suggestions are more than welcome :-)

Ta

M


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Vivek Khera
Date:
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Next
From: Rhaoni Chiu Pereira
Date:
Subject: How to force an Index ?