From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partial VACUUM FULL |
Date: | 2004-03-24 18:03:47 |
Message-ID: | 4061CD83.3090303@potentialtech.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>>Was this true for some previous version? I could have swore I read somewhere
>>>that vacuum_mem had to be set high enough or vacuum wouldn't be able to clean
>>>everything up (aside from anything locked in transactions).
>>
>>Nope, never been the case.
>>
>>>Is performance the only reason for increasing vacuum_mem?
>>
>>Yes
>
> Maybe Bill's thinking of the fsm settings and regular vacuums and the
> limitations on how many tuples can be reclaimed by regular vacuuming being
> tied to fsm settings?
It's very likely that's where my confusion stemmed from, Scott.
Thanks for the pointer, I think I can clear up _all_ of my misunderstandings
now.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dustin Sallings | 2004-03-24 18:09:08 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
Previous Message | Rich Hall | 2004-03-24 17:27:43 | Stored Function EXCEPTION detection by Perl using DBI |