| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why vacuum |
| Date: | 2005-10-26 05:57:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20051026055720.GA19105@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:15:17AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
> vacuumed once a week'.
The use of the word "commit" is amusing, considering that MySQL's
default table type doesn't support transactions. There's always
InnoDB, but it seems like there was something about that in the
news recently....
Compare the following lists of gotchas and decide which database
*you'd* commit mission-critical data to:
http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
http://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html
> So why does pg need vacuum?
See the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/maintenance.html#ROUTINE-VACUUMING
--
Michael Fuhr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bath, David | 2005-10-26 06:22:40 | Re: why vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-26 05:14:40 | Re: why vacuum |