Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum
От | John R Pierce |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CD86B7B.5040509@hogranch.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum (Jason Long <jason@octgsoftware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum
Re: Full Vacuum/Reindex vs autovacuum |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 11/08/10 10:50 AM, Jason Long wrote: > I currently have Postgres 9.0 install after an upgrade. My database is > relatively small, but complex. The dump is about 90MB. > > Every night when there is no activity I do a full vacuum, a reindex, and > then dump a nightly backup. > > Is this optimal with regards to performance? autovacuum is set to the > default. if you have frequently updated tables that are accessed mostly from their primary key, it may pay to CLUSTER those tables on said index rather than doing the full vacuum. VACUUM FULL is usually not recommended, btw. Also, if you have tables that get lots of updates that only affect data and not indexed columns, setting a FILL FACTOR of, say, 70 or 80 (its in %) might help with performance by better facilitating HOT updates (HOT is a internal feature added to pg 8.3 to speed up these sorts of updates)
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: