Re: Inserts or Updates
От | Ofer Israeli |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Inserts or Updates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 217DDBC2BB1E394CA9E7446337CBDEF20102C056BE70@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Inserts or Updates (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Inserts or Updates
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi Claudio, You mean running a VACUUM statement manually? I would basically try to avoid such a situation as the way I see it, the databaseshould be configured in such a manner that it will be able to handle the load at any given moment and so I wouldn'twant to manually intervene here. If you think differently, I'll be happy to stand corrected. Thanks, Ofer -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Claudio Freire Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:31 PM To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Inserts or Updates On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ofer Israeli <oferi@checkpoint.com> wrote: > Thanks Kevin for the ideas. Now that you have corrected our misconception regarding the autovacuum not handling indexbloating, we are looking into running autovacuum frequently enough to make sure we don't have significant increase intable size or index size. We intend to keep our transactions short enough not to reach the situation where vacuum fullor CLUSTER is needed. Also, rather than going overboard with autovacuum settings, do make it more aggressive, but also set up a regular, manual vacuum of either the whole database or whatever tables you need to vacuum at known-low-load hours. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: