From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Name for new VACUUM |
Date: | 2001-08-03 16:04:14 |
Message-ID: | 200108031604.f73G4El27673@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It does no such thing. The only difference is that it's willing to move
> a few tuples around if it can thereby free up (and truncate) whole pages
> at the end of the table. (In a live system you'd better hope it's only
> a few tuples, anyway ;-) ... or you'll be waiting a long time.) It
> doesn't even do a complete defrag; it stops moving tuples as soon as it
> finds that it won't be able to truncate the table any further. So
> there's *not* that much difference.
>
> > VACUUM DEFRAG?
> > VACUUM COMPRESS?
>
> While these look kinda ugly to me, I can find no stronger objection than
> that. (Well, maybe I could complain that these overstate what old-style
> vacuum actually does, but that's even weaker.) What do other people
> think?
I kind of like COMPRESS, though VACUUM NOLOCK can do compress sometimes
too. That gets confusing. That's why I hit on LOCK. I couldn't think
of another _unique_ thing old vacuum did.
--
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 | Jan Wieck | 2001-08-03 16:15:11 | Re: Re: Name for new VACUUM |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-03 15:58:05 | Re: Name for new VACUUM |