Re: More Praise for 7.4RC2
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: More Praise for 7.4RC2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0311131524530.1239-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: More Praise for 7.4RC2 ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Oh, another good choice for embedding is sleepycat's berkely db database, or just plain old db style (gdbm lib, or ndbm, or any of a few others) hash databases. Simple, non-relational, and fast. On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Reece Hart wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:09, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > > Do you vacuum full every so often? If not, and if you've been overflowing > > > your fsm, then your tables will just grow without shrinking. > > > Also, index growth could be a problem. > > > > > > Hmm. I didn't realize that I needed to vacuum full as well -- I thought > > vacuum was sufficient for performance gains, and that full reclaimed > > space but didn't result in significant performance gains. I have > > reindexed infrequently, but since that locks the table I didn't do that > > (or vacuum full) often. I guess I should try out pg_autovacuum, but I > > think that full vacuums only to prevent XID wraparound (if age>1.5B > > transactions), but not for compaction (is this correct?).
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: