| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "neilc(at)samurai(dot)com" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Size for vacuum_mem |
| Date: | 2002-12-05 19:23:42 |
| Message-ID: | 29912.1039116222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Francisco Reyes" <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> writes:
> On 4 Dec 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
>> Do you need to use VACUUM FULL?
> I have a very large turnover ratio.
> For some tables I delete/reload the whole table daily (tables in the 500K
> to 1.5 Million records), while other tables I delete/reload about 1/3 (ie
> 7 Million records table I delete/copy 1.5 Million records).
For the delete/copy scenario, you could avoid the need for VACUUM by
using TRUNCATE, if you don't mind the fact that TRUNCATE isn't
rollbackable (yet).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-12-05 19:38:13 | Order of execution of Constraints, Triggers and Rules |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-05 19:17:08 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces |