[let's keep this thread on the list please]

>>>>> "Nikolay" == Nikolay Mihaylov <pg@nmmm.nu> writes:

    Nikolay> Why you do not use UPDATE instead DELETE ? (e.g. flag if
    Nikolay> the operation is finished)

That was my first response when the test crew said that 'they found
that the problem seemed to be in the DELETE, not the INSERT' (their
exact words :).

My idea was that that would decrease the fragmentation of the database...

The difference was minor, (yet again) according to the test crew...

    Nikolay> We had similar problems, but a VACUUM once per 2-3 mo,
    Nikolay> helps us (the database is not so big ~ 20 - 30MB).

Is this database constantly changing? Or is it more or less static?

The database won't be bigger than 10Mb at any time (and that's an
exaggeration). The real issue seem to be the constant changing of
the content...
-- 
Uzi Ortega 767 class struggle Clinton counter-intelligence
arrangements toluene PLO AK-47 Ft. Meade Soviet quiche Khaddafi
cracking
[See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]

06 Mar 2002 17:27:59 +0100
Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com>
Re: Drop in performance for each INSERT/DELETE combo