On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 4/23/15 8:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Some users are partitioning tables just so that each >> partition can be autovac'd separately. That really shouldn't be >> required. > > Are they doing this for improved heap scan performance? Index scan > performance? If the table wasn't partitioned, would they need more than one > pass through the indexes due to exhausting maintenance_work_mem?
I don't know of anyone with a properly-configured system who needs more than one pass through the indexes due to exhausting maintenance_work_mem. The issue is that you have to vacuum a table frequently enough to avoid accumulating bloat. The frequency with which you need to vacuum varies depending on the size of the table and how frequently it's updated. However, a large, heavily-updated table can take long enough to vacuum that, by the time you get done, it's already overdue to be vacuumed again. That's a problem. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
