From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
To: Jeremy Haile <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:02:25 +0100
Message-ID: <82d55okrim.fsf@mid.bfk.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1168363601.5177.1168380907@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1168363601.5177.1168380907@webmail.messagingengine.com>
* Jeremy Haile:
> I'd like any performance advice, but my main concern is the amount of
> time vacuum/analyze runs and its possible impact on the overall DB
> performance. Thanks!
You could partition your data tables by date and discard old data
simply by dropping the tables. This is far more effective than
vacuuming, but obviously, this approach cannot be used in all cases
(e.g. if you need more dynamic expiry rules).
--
Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: fweimer@bfk.de, jhaile@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum
In-Reply-To: <82d55okrim.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox