Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3
Date
Msg-id 200310051428.h95ESVJ24436@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > By doing REINDEX always, we eliminate some folks are are happy
> > doing VACUUM FULL at night, because very few tuples are expired.
> 
> But if they have very few tuples expired, why do they need VACUUM FULL?
> Seems to me that VACUUM FULL should be designed to cater to the case
> of significant updates.

Right, they could just run vacuum, and my 10% idea was bad because the
vacuum full would take an unpredictable amount of time to run depending
on whether it does a reindex.

One idea would be to allow VACUUM, VACUUM DATA (no reindex), and VACUUM
FULL (reindex).  However, as you said, we might not need VACUUM DATA ---
I am just not sure.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: PQfnumber and quoted identifiers