On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:14:45PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> > As for Reindex, I'm not entirely sure, I don't think you would benefit
> > from reindex because you aren't updating or deleting. Can anyone comment
> > on this? Is is possibile that a table with lots of inserts resulting in
> > lot
> Also, somebody made a real good point about rolled-back insertions.
> Even if the only command you ever apply to the table is INSERT, you
> could still have dead rows in the table if some of those transactions
> occasionally roll back.
hmm... That's true. I don't think autovacuum doesn't anythi
matthew@zeut.net ("Matthew T. O'Connor") writes:
> If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting,
> then you will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just
> need to ANALYSE the table. If you use autovacuum that is exactly
> what it will do.
"Never" is a pretty long
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting, then you
>> will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just need to ANALYSE
>> the table.
> That's not quit
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting, then you
> will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just need to ANALYSE
> the table.
That's not quite true; the table must still be vacuumed occasio
If you really are just inserting, and never updating or deleting, then you
will never need to vacuum the table, rather you will just need to ANALYSE
the table. If you use autovacuum that is exactly what it will do.
As for Reindex, I'm not entirely sure, I don't think you would benefit
from reinde
We have 2 tables we expect to grow by up to
50,000 rows per day each depending on the customer. In normal
operation we will most likely never update or delete from these tables
as they are for historical reporting. (Eventually we may but a limit
on the amount of data and delete older than X
Rick Gigger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>One more question; on one server the Vacuum Analyze before the insert takes
> >>approx. 2min after that the same command takes 15min.
> >
> >
> > You might try a VACUUM FULL sometime when you can deal with 15min of downtime
> > or so. Actually it would
One more question; on one server the Vacuum Analyze before the insert takes
approx. 2min after that the same command takes 15min.
You might try a VACUUM FULL sometime when you can deal with 15min of downtime
or so. Actually it would probably be longer. Perhaps the table that's taking
15min has a t
Greg Stark wrote:
Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There won't be anything to VACUUM after the insert, but perhaps you still want
to run ANALYZE. Note that a plain ANALYZE uses a statistical sample which is
much faster, whereas VACUUM ANALYZE has to look at every record anyways so
it's slower but
Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How reasonable is it to run a Vacuum Analyze before and after the
> insert/update of the data.
On a busy system you should run vacuum more often than once per day.
You should probably run a VACUUM after the update. And running ANALYZE at the
same time isn't a b
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
> just a few questions on the Vaccum
>
> I run a vacuum analyze on the database every night as part of a
> maintenance job.
>
> During the day I have a job that loads 30-70,000 records into two tables
> (each 30-70k).
> This job runs 2-3 times a day; the fi
Ed Loehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can't reproduce any problem with just a "vacuum" (with or without
>> analyze) and no following command.
>>
>> I did, however, notice that very occasionally the inserting process
>> would spit out weird error messages like "Function '(int
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ed Loehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > % while test 1; do echo -n "`date`: "; psql -d pdb -c "vacuum analyze;
> > select count(*) from foo;"; sleep 3; done
> >
> > This seems to consistently crash after the first vacuum with the
> > following message:
> >
Ed Loehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> % while test 1; do echo -n "`date`: "; psql -d pdb -c "vacuum analyze;
> select count(*) from foo;"; sleep 3; done
>
> This seems to consistently crash after the first vacuum with the
> following message:
>>
>> This is a known gotcha tha
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ed Loehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Then, start this one in another bash window/terminal/whatever...
> >>
> >> % while test 1; do echo -n "`date`: "; psql -d pdb -c "vacuum analyze;
> >> select count(*) from foo;"; sleep 3; done
> >>
> >> This seems to consistently crash
Ed Loehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then, start this one in another bash window/terminal/whatever...
>>
>> % while test 1; do echo -n "`date`: "; psql -d pdb -c "vacuum analyze;
>> select count(*) from foo;"; sleep 3; done
>>
>> This seems to consistently crash after the first vacuum with th
17 matches
Mail list logo
