From: | Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal |
Date: | 2007-05-15 16:43:50 |
Message-ID: | 87lkfqavg9.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-performance |
Dear all,
After some time spent better understanding how the VACUUM process
works, what problems we had in production and how to improve our
maintenance policy[1], I've come up with a little documentation
patch - basically, I think the documentation under estimates (or
sometimes misses) the benefit of VACUUM FULL for scans, and the
needs of VACUUM FULL if the routine VACUUM hasn't been done
properly since the database was put in production. Find the patch
against snapshot attached (text not filled, to ease reading). It
might help others in my situation in the future.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_vacuum.patch | text/x-patch | 2.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Stone | 2007-05-15 17:44:29 | Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-05-15 15:54:09 | Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum and XID wraparound |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Drew Wilson | 2007-05-15 16:43:55 | Re: Many to many join seems slow? |
Previous Message | Daniel Cristian Cruz | 2007-05-15 16:00:29 | Re: Many to many join seems slow? |