On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, pginfo wrote: > Hi, > > scott.marlowe wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, pginfo wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am running pg 7.4.1 on linux box. > > > I have a midle size DB with many updates and after it I try to run > > > vacuum full analyze. > > > > Is there a reason to not use just regular vacuum / analyze (i.e. NOT > > full)? > > > > Yes, in case I make massive updates (only in my case of cource) for example > 2 M rows, I do not expect to have 2M new rows in next 180 days.That is the > reaso for running vacuum full. > My idea was to free unneedet space and so to have faster system. > It is possible that I am wrong.
It's all about percentages. If you've got an average of 5% dead tuples with regular vacuuming, then full vacuums won't gain you much, if anything. If you've got 20 dead tuples for each live one, then a full vacuum is pretty much a necessity. The generally accepted best performance comes with 5 to 50% or so dead tuples. Keep in mind, having a few dead tuples is actually a good thing, as your database won't grow then srhink the file all the time, but keep it in a steady state size wise. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html