From: | Daniele Orlandi <daniele(at)orlandi(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why vacuum? |
Date: | 2000-12-14 17:13:44 |
Message-ID: | 3A38FFC8.EBB737E7@orlandi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
>
> Not to mention the recent thread here about people recovering data that
> was accidently deleted, or from damaged db files: the old tuples serve
> as redundant backup, in a way. Not a real compelling reason to keep a
> non-overwriting smgr, but still a surprise bonus for those who need it.
The optimal would be a configurable behaviour. I wouldn't enable it on a
users table, neither on a log-type table (the former is a slowly
changing table, the second is a table with few updates/deletes), but a
fast-changing table like an active sessions table would benefit a lot.
Currently, my active sessions table grows by 100K every 20 seconds, I
have to constantly vacuum it to keep the things reasonable. Other tables
would benefit a lot, pg_listener for example.
Bye!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-12-14 17:15:00 | Re: Why vacuum? |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2000-12-14 17:10:02 | Re: switching txlog file in 7.1beta |