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 0C0359DCBC3 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:46:21 -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 00312-03 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:46:17 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.logix-tt.com (serval.logix-tt.com [213.239.221.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0149DCBE4 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:46:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Mcbf1.m.pppool.de [89.49.203.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B1924400F; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:46:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334C0181520ED; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:38:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <43E9F440.1080001@logix-tt.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:38:08 +0100 From: Markus Schaber Organization: Logical Tracking and Tracing International AG, Switzerland User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mahesh Shinde , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Default autovacuum settings too conservative References: <20060201211633.GM95850@pervasive.com> <43E12A03.6070906@zeut.net> <20060207050545.GZ1240@pervasive.com> <20060207072621.GI13592@pervasive.com> <43E89506.40903@logix-tt.com> <20060208010339.GT38134@pervasive.com> <43E94E42.3080605@pws.com.au> <43E9D066.40101@logix-tt.com> <002c01c62ca4$3159b860$dd0aa8c0@codecindia.com> In-Reply-To: <002c01c62ca4$3159b860$dd0aa8c0@codecindia.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.121 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121] X-Spam-Score: 0.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/71 X-Sequence-Number: 17057 Hi, Mahesh, Mahesh Shinde wrote: > Does vacuum improves the performance of the database search.. As if now I > have a table who is having a records 70 lac and daily appx 10-15 thousand > rows get added. so please let me know which type of vacuum I should prefer. > I am accessing a data using java application which is hosted on the same > database server. I don't know what "70 lac" means. But if you only add to the table, and never update or delete, vacuum brings nothing for performance. (Although it is necessary for TID wraparound prevention.) However, if your often do range queries on an index that does not correspond to the insertion order, you may benefit from CLUSTERing on that index from time to time. Hth, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org