Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Martín Marqués
Subject Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?
Date
Msg-id a3fa3519-7685-0425-50e1-276653896836@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?  (Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?  (Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>)
Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
El 20/06/16 a las 09:50, Melvin Davidson escribió:
>
>
>>but it won't let it grow too (or am I missing something).
>
> Yes, you are missing something. By partioning and {Vacuum Full only the
> table with data no longer needed}, the rest of the data remains
> available to the users
> AND space is reclaimed by the O/S, so it's the best of both worlds.

That's not entirely true. Think about a SELECT which has to scan all
child tables.

Your are also adding another layer of complexity to the system.

--
Martín Marqués                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Navis
Date:
Subject: Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index
Next
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?