> From: Matthew Wakeling > > Perhaps reading the other replies in the thread before > replying yourself might be advisable, because this previous > reply directly contradicts you: > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > I recommend VACUUM ANALYZE of the table(s) after this step. Without > > that, the first query to read each tuple sets its hint bits and > > rewrites it, causing a surprising delay at unpredictable times > > (although heavier near the start of the day). > > There *is* a benefit of running VACUUM ANALYSE rather than > just ANALYSE. > > Matthew
I did read the other replies first, I guess I just missed Kevin Grittner's somehow. I noticed several people were worried the OP had problems with bloat, which is why I suggested TRUNCATE if possible. That was my main point. I guess I made the other comment because I feel beginners with postgres quite often don't understand the difference between VACUUM and ANALYSE, and for large tables an ANALYSE alone can take much less time. I didn't think about hint bits because I've never noticed a big impact from them, but that is probably just because of my particular situation. Now that it has been pointed out to me I agree it is good advise for the OP to use VACUUM ANALSE. Dave -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
