On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anibal David Acosta <aa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sometimes I read that postgres performance is degraded over the time and > something people talk about backup and restore database solve the problem. > > It is really true? Yes and no. If you let things get out of hand, a backup and restore may be your best choice. > I have postgres 9.0 on a windows machine with The autovacuum is ON Good start > Transactional table has about 4 millions of rows inserted per day. > > In the midnight all rows are moved to a historical table and in the > historical table rows are about 2 months, any transaction older than 2 > months are deleted daily. You should look into table partitioning then. but as long as vacuum keeps up you're probably still ok. Look at the check_postgresql.pl script by the same guy who wrote Bucardo. It'll keep you advised of how much bloat your tables have. > So, my question is, if Should I expect same performance over time (example: > after 1 year) or should I expect a degradation and must implements come > technics like backup restore every certain time? If you maintain your db properly, performance should stay good. If you ignore bloat issues you might have some issues. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
