Re: Size for vacuum_mem
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Size for vacuum_mem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1039125476.11130.179.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Size for vacuum_mem ("Francisco Reyes" <lists@natserv.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Size for vacuum_mem
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 12:57, Francisco Reyes wrote: > > For these, you can try just using a plain VACUUM and seeing how > > effective that is at reclaiming space. > > I am not too concerned with space reclamation. In theory if I don't do > vacuum fulls I may have some dead space, but it would get re-used daily. > My concern is the performance hit I would suffer with the table scans. > you should see very little performance impact from lazy vacuuming. If there is a performance hit, you can gain some offset by quicker queries (if you do vacuum analyze). And remember, lazy vacuums are non-blocking so users won't see an impact from that standpoint. The trick is to find a good interval that will keep your tables from growing too big. I have one table that updates every 10 minutes (the whole content of the table gets updated within 15 minutes), which keeps the size very manageable (it's not a huge table, or I would do it more). In this scenario, you can still do vacuum fulls if you feel the need, but they should take much less time. Robert Treat
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: