Re: vacuum vs pg_repack for clearing bloat?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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?