| From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 15:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAECtzeUPuYNTzqdzhprNoOn1aY+QHdak21=p9CJouXuUnczEmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2016-06-20 17:03 GMT+02:00 Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <
> andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 20.06.2016 um 11:43 schrieb Job:
>>
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> I would suggest run only autovacuum, and with time you will see a not
>>>> more growing table. There is no need for vacuum full.
>>>>
>>> So new record, when will be pg_bulkloaded, will replace "marked-free"
>>> location?
>>>
>>
>>
>> exactly, that's the task for vacuum
>>
>>
> I believe that free space is only available to UPDATE, not INSERT.
>
>
No, it's available for both.
--
Guillaume.
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martín Marqués | 2016-06-20 15:18:58 | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2016-06-20 15:06:27 | Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? |