| From: | Tim Allen <tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Why vacuum? |
| Date: | 2000-12-14 03:58:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0012141454310.3175-100000@bee.proximity.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Plenty of other databases need to be 'vacuumed'. For instance, if you have
> an ms access database with 5 MB of data in it, and then delete all the data,
> leaving only the forms, etc - you will be left with a 5MB mdb file still!
>
> If you then run 'Compact Database' (which is another word for 'vacuum'), the
> mdb file will be reduced down to 500k...
Ooh... Hope MS Access isn't going to be taken seriously as a benchmark
here :-). The same is also true of MapInfo, by the way, but I'm not
holding that up as a benchmark either ;-).
> Chris
Tim
--
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Allen tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au
Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-14 04:17:08 | Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-12-14 03:47:50 | Re: Why vacuum? |