Re: replacements for vacuum?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: replacements for vacuum?
Date: 2004-12-17 21:28:14
Message-ID: 24266.1103318894@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Are there any alternatives to vacuum (and, i'm aware of autovacuum)?

CLUSTER is frequently a competitive alternative to VACUUM FULL.

In 8.0, there are some flavors of ALTER TABLE that rewrite the whole
table; this would work too, and should be faster than CLUSTER if you
don't care about the resulting table order.

Neither of these are a good substitute for plain VACUUM, but when you
have a table that's sparse enough to need a VACUUM FULL, consider them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-12-17 21:28:30 Re: replacements for vacuum?
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-12-17 21:19:34 Re: sorting problem