Re: Postgresql optimisation
От | Dave Dutcher |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgresql optimisation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1A5F6A38A6E4435EA09F8C27A0777616@tridecap.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgresql optimisation (Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
> 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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: