Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-21 Thread Alex Stapleton
On 20 Jun 2005, at 18:46, Josh Berkus wrote: Alex, Hi, i'm trying to optimise our autovacuum configuration so that it vacuums / analyzes some of our larger tables better. It has been set to the default settings for quite some time. We never delete anything (well not often, and not much)

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-21 Thread Josh Berkus
Alex, Downtime is something I'd rather avoid if possible. Do you think we will need to run VACUUM FULL occasionally? I'd rather not lock tables up unless I cant avoid it. We can probably squeeze an automated vacuum tied to our data inserters every now and then though. As long as your

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-21 Thread Alex Stapleton
On 21 Jun 2005, at 18:13, Josh Berkus wrote: Alex, Downtime is something I'd rather avoid if possible. Do you think we will need to run VACUUM FULL occasionally? I'd rather not lock tables up unless I cant avoid it. We can probably squeeze an automated vacuum tied to our data inserters

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-21 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:08:43PM +0100, Alex Stapleton wrote: Bloody Debian stable. I might have to experiment with building from source or using alien on debian to convert the rpms. Fun. Oh well. Or just pull in postgresql-8.0 from unstable; sid is close enough to sarge for it to work

[PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-20 Thread Alex Stapleton
Hi, i'm trying to optimise our autovacuum configuration so that it vacuums / analyzes some of our larger tables better. It has been set to the default settings for quite some time. We never delete anything (well not often, and not much) from the tables, so I am not so worried about the

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-20 Thread Alex Stapleton
On 20 Jun 2005, at 15:59, Jacques Caron wrote: Hi, At 16:44 20/06/2005, Alex Stapleton wrote: We never delete anything (well not often, and not much) from the tables, so I am not so worried about the VACUUM status DELETEs are not the only reason you might need to VACUUM. UPDATEs are

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-20 Thread John Arbash Meinel
Alex Stapleton wrote: On 20 Jun 2005, at 15:59, Jacques Caron wrote: ... ANALYZE is not a very expensive operation, however VACUUM can definitely be a big strain and take a long time on big tables, depending on your setup. I've found that partitioning tables (at the application

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum suggestions for 500,000,000+ row tables?

2005-06-20 Thread Josh Berkus
Alex, Hi, i'm trying to optimise our autovacuum configuration so that it vacuums / analyzes some of our larger tables better. It has been set to the default settings for quite some time. We never delete anything (well not often, and not much) from the tables, so I am not so worried about