Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E619FB25A for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:02:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94453-04 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:02:32 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635F39FB250 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:02:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from [10.119.110.2] (helo=mx00.int.bfk.de) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtp id 1H4LIo-0007OZ-Vg; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:02:26 +0100 Received: from fweimer by bfk.de with local id 1H4LIn-0000VJ-F2; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:02:25 +0100 To: "Jeremy Haile" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum References: <1168363601.5177.1168380907@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Florian Weimer Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:02:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1168363601.5177.1168380907@webmail.messagingengine.com> (Jeremy Haile's message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:26:41 -0500") Message-ID: <82d55okrim.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/119 X-Sequence-Number: 22720 * 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). --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99