AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-13 15:46:43
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368386@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > The conventional VACUUM would then be something you do as part of a DB
> > reorganization (maybe once every month or so).
>
> Yes, but in other DB's if you UPDATE all rows in the table, you don't
> double the disk space.

Sure, but what is wrong with keeping the space allocated for the next
"UPDATE all rows", if that is something the application needs to do frequently ?
PostgreSQL needs more space on disc, but we knew that already :-)

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-13 16:07:22 Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-07-13 15:44:17 Re: Re: select count...