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 C2F879DD61C for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:02:07 -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 90586-09 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:02:08 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3699DD607 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:02:05 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id D07E83093D; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:02:06 +0100 (MET) From: Michael Riess X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: postgresql performance tuning Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:02:05 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) In-Reply-To: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/193 X-Sequence-Number: 16014 Ameet Kini schrieb: > > This didn't get through the first time around, so resending it again. > Sorry for any duplicate entries. > > Hello, > > I have a question on postgres's performance tuning, in particular, the > vacuum and reindex commands. Currently I do a vacuum (without full) on all > of my tables. I'm curious ... why no full vacuum? I bet that the full vacuum will compact your (index) tables as much as a reindex would. I guess the best advice is to increase FSM and to use autovacuum.