Re: AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-13 16:10:29
Message-ID: 200107131610.f6DGATK15782@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > The conventional VACUUM would then be something you do as part of a DB
> > > reorganization (maybe once every month or so).
> >
> > Yes, but in other DB's if you UPDATE all rows in the table, you don't
> > double the disk space.
>
> Sure, but what is wrong with keeping the space allocated for
> the next "UPDATE all rows", if that is something the application
> needs to do frequently ? PostgreSQL needs more space on disc,
> but we knew that already :-)

In many cases, a VACUUM will not have been run before more space is
needed in the table so you will get ever-increasing sizes until a full
VACUUM. Only in an optimial light VACUUM state would a table that gets
continually updated _not_ continue to grow.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Welche 2001-07-13 16:25:08 Re: iconv?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2001-07-13 16:09:47 Re: Re: select count...