Re: Shortening time of vacuum analyze

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL general list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shortening time of vacuum analyze
Date: 2002-01-30 20:47:14
Message-ID: 20020130154714.J20009@mail.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:23:50PM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:

> You can put the delete/load inside a transaction so the users will never
> see an empty table. Truncate can not be placed inside a transaction.

True enough. But why not leave the table unvacuumed, then, until a
more convenient time? You are, of course, paying a cost in
performance during that time, but not as great as you would with
vacuum.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bjoern Metzdorf 2002-01-30 21:08:28 Re: process exited with status 11 after XLogFlush: request is not satisfied
Previous Message Mitch Vincent 2002-01-30 20:17:36 Re: please help me build a business case for using postgresql at my company