| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 01:32:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1253151165.9666.121.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> But if
> we get rid of old-style VACUUM FULL then we do need something to cover
> those few-and-far-between situations where you really do desperately
> need to compact a table in place; and a utility like this seems like a
> reasonable solution. I'm thinking in particular that it should be
> possible to have it move just a bounded number of tuples at a time,
> so that you could do a VACUUM to clean out the indexes in between
> move passes. Otherwise you run the risk of running out of disk space
> anyway, due to index bloat.
Agreed to all of the above, though I see some challenges.
The way I read the thread so far is that there are multiple
requirements:
* Shrink a table efficiently - when time and space available to do so
* Shrink a table in place - when no space available
* Shrink a table concurrently - when no dedicated time available
We probably can't do all of them at once, but we do need all of them, at
various times.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-17 01:35:25 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-17 01:22:50 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |