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: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
Date: | 2003-10-05 14:28:31 |
Message-ID: | 200310051428.h95ESVJ24436@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > By doing REINDEX always, we eliminate some folks are are happy
> > doing VACUUM FULL at night, because very few tuples are expired.
>
> But if they have very few tuples expired, why do they need VACUUM FULL?
> Seems to me that VACUUM FULL should be designed to cater to the case
> of significant updates.
Right, they could just run vacuum, and my 10% idea was bad because the
vacuum full would take an unpredictable amount of time to run depending
on whether it does a reindex.
One idea would be to allow VACUUM, VACUUM DATA (no reindex), and VACUUM
FULL (reindex). However, as you said, we might not need VACUUM DATA ---
I am just not sure.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 14:32:14 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-10-05 14:26:06 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |