X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD94E9DCDB6 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:18:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25400-04-2 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:18:46 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE50C9DCD93 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:18:44 -0400 (AST) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [64.81.245.111] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO [192.168.1.27]) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 9102639; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:21:41 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: No vacuum for insert-only database? Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:16:53 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: Alvaro Herrera , "Craig A. James" References: <44158989.6020103@modgraph-usa.com> <4415A9A4.5020903@modgraph-usa.com> <20060313174135.GA16213@surnet.cl> In-Reply-To: <20060313174135.GA16213@surnet.cl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603131116.53998.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.083 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083] X-Spam-Score: 0.083 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/169 X-Sequence-Number: 17606 Craig, > Transaction ID wraparound will be a problem at a bit less than 2 billion > transactions. So if you vacuum the table every 1 billion transactions > you are safe. I suggest you read the "routine maintenance" section in > the docs; the wraparound issue is explained there. For reference, we calculated on a data warehouse with about 700 million rows in the main fact table that we had 6 years until XID wraparound. Mind you, that's partly because all of our rows were inserted in large batches of 100,000 rows each. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco