RE: Why vacuum? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tim Allen
Subject RE: Why vacuum?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0012141454310.3175-100000@bee.proximity.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Why vacuum?  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List 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@proximity.com.au
Proximity Pty Ltd  http://www.proximity.com.au/ http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: RE: Why vacuum?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY