| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lists <lists(at)benjamindsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum vs pg_repack for clearing bloat? |
| Date: | 2014-01-16 00:24:02 |
| Message-ID: | 6239.1389831842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Lists <lists(at)benjamindsmith(dot)com> writes:
> Our app makes extensive use of temp tables, and this causes a
> significant amount of bloat that can often only be cleared with a manual
> vacuum process. We're looking for a better way that doesn't involve
> locking, we found pg_repack and pg_reorg and were wondering if anybody
> here could weigh in on using this instead of using vacuum?
A temp table is only accessible to the owning process, so if you're hoping
for vacuuming of it to happen silently in background, you'll be sadly
disappointed. The speed advantage of a temp table come exactly from not
having to worry about concurrent access, so this isn't a tradeoff that can
easily be adjusted.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2014-01-16 01:12:15 | Re: vacuum vs pg_repack for clearing bloat? |
| Previous Message | Lists | 2014-01-16 00:09:28 | vacuum vs pg_repack for clearing bloat? |