| From: | Michael Shapiro <mshapiro51(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
| 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 14:17:44 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimVn-MkByzvYG8Jb6a3-f6ZbChKp65DiK-A9erq@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-support |
The document http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/VACUUM_FULL says:
VACUUM FULL, unlike VACUUM, tuples data that has not been deleted, moving it
into spaces earlier in the file that have been freed. Once it's created a
free space at the end of the file, it truncates the file so that the OS
knows that space is free and may be reused for other things. Moving in-use
data around this way has some major downsides and side-effects, especially
the way VACUUM FULL does it. There are better ways to free space if you need
to and better ways to optimize tables (see below) so *you should essentially
never use VACUUM FULL*.
PgAdmin does not give the user a comparable warning when it goes to execute
a VACCUM FULL. Given the potential problems with the FULL option, would it
make sense for PgAdmin to issue a warning to this effect?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>wrote:
>
> > We're experiencing problems using vacuum full.
> This could be of interest:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/VACUUM_FULL
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-03 15:19:06 | Re: fsm and vacuum |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-03 14:15:51 | Re: fsm and vacuum |