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
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... |