Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks (Vacuum)

While on the subject of vacuum. I wonder if
Tom's time will be better utilized at figuring out how to
get rid of vacuum all together rather than trying to fix
it. Simply have that functionality replaced with a more
modern way of data management and query optimization.
That command was nothing but trouble in Illustra and is
not getting any better.
Just thinking out loud.

Rudy

On 6 Jan 00, at 13:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Untrue, vacuum is *extremely* important for updating statistics. If
> > you have a lot of data in a table, and you have never vacuumed, you
> > might as well not have any indices. It'd be nice if you could
> > seperate the stat update from the storage reclaim. Actually, it'd
> > be nice if you could reuse storage, so that an actual vacuum
> > wouldn't be necessary unless you just wanted to free up disk space
> > you might end up using again anyway.
> >
> > The vacuum also doesn't seem to be very efficient. In one of my
> > databases, a vacuum could take in excess of 24 hours, while I've
> > written a small SQL script that does a select rename and a insert
> > into select from that will do the same job in about ten minutes.
> > This is a database that cannot lock for more than a few minutes.
>
> This is serious. Why would an INSERT / RENAME be so much faster. Are
> we that bad with VACUUM?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000 + If your
> life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your
> backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ************
>
>