| From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Shapiro <mshapiro51(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Little, Douglas" <DOUGLAS(dot)LITTLE(at)orbitz(dot)com>, PgAdmin Support <pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fsm and vacuum |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 15:40:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF90F60.3030301@lelarge.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-support |
Le 03/12/2010 16:25, Michael Shapiro a écrit :
> I understand, but in this case, since the option is offered next to the safe
> one, most people won't know it isn't safe.
Both are safe. They don't offer the same service. VACUUM will allow
PostgreSQL to reuse dead space, VACUUM FULL will free space on the hard
drive (and have a negative effect on the table's indexes if you don't do
a REINDEX).
> I certainly didn't until I read this posting. I know generally what
> vacuuming does, but I had no idea that postgres offered a potentially
> damaging option. Also, PgAdmin sometimes tells me that a table needs
> vacuuming, so it is already "advising" people in that area ...
Yea, the guru hints. Don't like that and don't really want to extend them.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-03 15:43:33 | Re: fsm and vacuum |
| Previous Message | Little, Douglas | 2010-12-03 15:28:41 | Re: fsm and vacuum |