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 343249DCA35 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:24:40 -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 02428-09 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:24:39 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from moonunit2.moonview.localnet (wsip-68-15-5-150.sd.sd.cox.net [68.15.5.150]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA259DC94A for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:24:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (moonunit3.moonview.localnet [192.168.0.3]) by moonunit2.moonview.localnet (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k2DHPDjP010509; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:25:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4415A9A4.5020903@modgraph-usa.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:19:32 -0800 From: "Craig A. James" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alvaro Herrera CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: No vacuum for insert-only database? References: <44158989.6020103@modgraph-usa.com> <20060313150949.GK8274@surnet.cl> In-Reply-To: <20060313150949.GK8274@surnet.cl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.103 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103] X-Spam-Score: 0.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/164 X-Sequence-Number: 17601 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? Craig