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 B4E429DCA4F
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:51:04 -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 19460-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:51:03 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BCA259DCC3E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:51:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: (qmail 10028 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2006 18:52:08 -0000
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:52:08 -0600
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: "Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: No vacuum for insert-only database?
Message-ID: <20060313185208.GA5558@wolff.to>
Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>,
	"Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <44158989.6020103@modgraph-usa.com>
	<20060313150949.GK8274@surnet.cl>
	<4415A9A4.5020903@modgraph-usa.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4415A9A4.5020903@modgraph-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.101 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101]
X-Spam-Score: 0.101
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200603/167
X-Sequence-Number: 17604

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:19:32 -0800,
  "Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>If I only insert data into a table, never update or delete, then I should 
> >>never have to vacuum it.  Is that correct?
> >
> >You still need to vacuum eventually, to avoid transaction Id wraparound
> >issues.  But not as often.
> 
> Thanks.  Any suggestions for what "not as often" means?  For example, if my 
> database will never contain more than 10 million rows, is that a problem?  
> 100 million rows?  When does transaction ID wraparound become a problem?

I believe it is at billion (10^9).