> Untrue, vacuum is *extremely* important for updating statistics.
> If you have a lot of data in a table, and you have never vacuumed, you
> might as well not have any indices. It'd be nice if you could seperate
> the stat update from the storage reclaim. Actually, it'd be nice if you
> could reuse storage, so that an actual vacuum wouldn't be necessary unless
> you just wanted to free up disk space you might end up using again anyway.
>
> The vacuum also doesn't seem to be very efficient. In one of my
> databases, a vacuum could take in excess of 24 hours, while I've written a
> small SQL script that does a select rename and a insert into select from
> that will do the same job in about ten minutes. This is a database that
> cannot lock for more than a few minutes.
This is serious. Why would an INSERT / RENAME be so much faster. Are
we that bad with VACUUM?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
