Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504AF2E1D81 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:45:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09922-02 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:45:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from depesz.com (depesz.com [88.198.37.40]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CB42E2D91 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:45:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from depesz by depesz.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Isxld-0001Ma-IR; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:45:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:45:41 +0100 From: hubert depesz lubaczewski To: =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Farkas Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended? Message-ID: <20071116094541.GA5177@depesz.com> Reply-To: depesz@depesz.com References: <473D659B.1070008@nekomancer.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <473D659B.1070008@nekomancer.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/238 X-Sequence-Number: 27653 On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote: > we are moving one database from postgresql-7.4 to postgresql-8.2.4. any particular reason why not 8.2.5? > > my question is: is it recommended to use it? or in other words, should i > only use autovacuum? or it's better to use manual-vacuuming? which one > is the "way of the future" :) ? or should i use both auto-vacuum and > manual-vacuum? autovacuum is definitely prefered (for most of the cases). you might want to set vacuum delays though. depesz -- quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a highly paid DBA. here's my CV!" :) http://www.depesz.com/ - blog dla ciebie (i moje CV)