| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Walker <pgsql(at)grax(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum improvement |
| Date: | 2002-10-16 17:18:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1034788705.31803.53.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:33, David Walker wrote:
> Vacuum full locks the whole table currently. I was thinking if you used a
> similar to a hard drive defragment that only 2 rows would need to be locked
> at a time. When you're done vacuum/defragmenting you shorten the file to
> discard the dead tuples that are located after your useful data. There might
> be a need to lock the table for a little while at the end but it seems like
> you could reduce that time greatly.
>
> I had one table that is heavily updated and it grew to 760 MB even with
> regular vacuuming. A vacuum full reduced it to 1.1 MB. I am running 7.2.0
> (all my vacuuming is done by superuser).
>
Not that I'm against the idea, but isn't this just a sign that your just
not vacuuming frequently enough?
Robert Treat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Igor Georgiev | 2002-10-16 17:43:27 | "COPY FROM" recognize \xDD sequence - addition to copy.c & idea 4 developers |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-16 16:55:22 | Re: "COPY FROM" recognize \xDD sequence - addition to copy.c |