ציטוט Bill Moran:
> In response to Herouth Maoz <herouth@unicell.co.il>:
>
>
> Did I understand the original problem correctly? I thought you were saying
> that _lack_ of analyzing was causing performance issues, and that running
> vacuum analyze was taking too long and causing the interval between
> analyze runs to be too long. If that is the case, then I still think
> manually scheduling vacuum and analyze to run in separate threads is
> the best approach.
>
Yes, I get the worst impact if autovacuum decides to do a vacuum analyze
rather than a separate vacuum and a separate analyze. However, normal
vacuum does cause a slowdown, though not as much as vacuum analyze.
> If the problem is that overall performance slows too much when vacuum is
> running, then you'll probably have to get more/faster hardware. Vacuum
> has to run occasionally or your table will bloat. Bloated tables perform
> lousy and waste a lot of space, and a table that is getting updates and
> inserts without vacuuming will grow without bound, even if you delete
> records. It's kind of like the trash bin on many desktop OSes ... when
> you DELETE a record from the DB, it goes into the trash bin, when you
> run VACUUM, the trash is emptied (Yes, I know that's not _exactly_ how
> vacuum works, but I'm just drawing a parallel here)
>
I understand. Assuming that I have enough disk space, and I vacuum once
a day instead of every 20 minutes. Does that cause deterioration in
performance?
Thank you,
Herouth