Oh, another good choice for embedding is sleepycat's berkely db database,
or just plain old db style (gdbm lib, or ndbm, or any of a few others)
hash databases. Simple, non-relational, and fast.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Reece Hart wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > > Do you vacuum full every so often? If not, and if you've been overflowing
> > > your fsm, then your tables will just grow without shrinking.
> > > Also, index growth could be a problem.
> >
> >
> > Hmm. I didn't realize that I needed to vacuum full as well -- I thought
> > vacuum was sufficient for performance gains, and that full reclaimed
> > space but didn't result in significant performance gains. I have
> > reindexed infrequently, but since that locks the table I didn't do that
> > (or vacuum full) often. I guess I should try out pg_autovacuum, but I
> > think that full vacuums only to prevent XID wraparound (if age>1.5B
> > transactions), but not for compaction (is this correct?).