From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:09:48 -0500
Message-ID: <20060117150948.GG21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43CCFA7E.1060307@zeut.net>
References: <dqigaf$1b98$1@news.hub.org>
<43CCC711.504@familyhealth.com.au>
<dqih4p$1clg$1@news.hub.org>
<43CCFA7E.1060307@zeut.net>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:09:02AM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> vacuum. As long as that percentage is small enough, the effect on
> performance is negligible. Have you measured to see if things are truly
Actually, as long as the percentage is small enough and the pages are
really empty, the performance effect is positive. If you have VACUUM
FULLed table, inserts have to extend the table before inserting,
whereas in a table with some space reclaimed, the I/O effect of
having to allocate another disk page is already done.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20060117150948.GG21092@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox