Re: REINDEX vs VACUUM

From: "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: REINDEX vs VACUUM
Date: 2023-01-05 12:15:00
Message-ID: 20230105121500.sbjmmw3xswwzyelt@hjp.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 2023-01-05 12:34:08 +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > Von: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>
> > On 2023-01-04 09:34:42 -0600, Ron wrote:
> > > I don't think VACUUM FULL (copy the table, create new indices and other
> > > metadata all in one command) actually vacuums tables.  It's a misleading
> > > name.
> >
> > Move all the stuff from the living room to the bedroom and then jettison
> > the living room.
> >
> > Isn't that how you normally vacuum your living room?
>
> Well, yeah, I wouldn't expect the table to be *copied*. After all, there's
> not that much use for more than one per living room.

Well, you won't have the old table anymore if you leave it in the living
room.

On a more serious note: It it pretty much impossible to move anything
inside a computer. To move something you have to

* copy it and then delete (overwrite) the original, or
* leave it where it is and refer to it from a different location (which
typically means copying and deleting the reference)

hp

--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Louis Laborde 2023-01-05 20:07:44 PG replicas and transactions atomicity
Previous Message Karsten Hilbert 2023-01-05 11:34:08 Aw: Re: REINDEX vs VACUUM