Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock?

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: PostgreSQL general list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock?
Date: 2002-03-02 18:20:32
Message-ID: 20020302132032.A28043@mail.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 01:23:59AM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> > Why do you need 'vacuum full' rather than just 'vacuum'? Read the docs,
> > it's usually not necessary.
>
> Because every night I delete/reload a big chunk of my data and then once a
> week I delete/reload the entire dataset... about 7 million records.

This is one thing that is slightly confusing (to me) about the new
vacuum -- perhaps someone more familiar with the internals can
clarify?

I thought that, in the case Mr Reyes is talking about, Postgres would
again use the freed disk space. It's just that the space would not
be available to other applications. I thought what VACUUM FULL did
was just free the disk space _absolutely_.

If I'm right, does that also mean that performance is actually
(marginally) _better_ in these types of cases, because the system
doesn't need to request new disk blocks from the OS?

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 Tom Lane 2002-03-02 18:55:07 Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-02 18:18:20 Re: Clues about tables fileformat