| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de>, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 17:53:47 |
| Message-ID: | 57682DAB.8080504@2ndquadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 20/06/16 17:25, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>>And you haven't read Vik's reply. :)
>
> Yes I have. Vacuum wll not lock all tables at once, only the ones it is
> currently working on, so the planner may have a slight delay,
> but it will not be gigantic.
I think you should try it.
> I have proposed a reasonable solution to solve the problem in it's
> entirety. Do you have a better one?
You mean by partitioning? That doesn't really solve any problem, except
that vacfull-ing a partition should be faster than doing the whole
enchilada.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2016-06-20 19:48:20 | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2016-06-20 16:06:10 | Re: Vacuum full: alternatives? |