Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19604.1039468227@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment... (Scott Shattuck <ss@technicalpursuit.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Scott Shattuck <ss@technicalpursuit.com> writes: > Robert Treat wrote: >> I don't think this is entirely true. On tables that have large numbers >> of inserts, but no updates or deletes, you do not need to run vacuum. > In my experience I've seen tables with numerous indexes continue to > benefit greatly from vacuum/vacuum full operations when large volumes of > inserts are performed. This is true even when the update/delete activity > on the base table itself is manageable. This is hard to believe, as VACUUM does not even touch the indexes unless it has found deletable tuples --- and I am quite certain that btree indexes, at least, do not do any VACUUM-time reorganization beyond deleting deletable entries. (I wouldn't swear to it one way or the other for GiST though.) Robert's opinion coincides with what I know of the code. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: