Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-07 08:17:57
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010707161757.015a5e40@192.228.128.13 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
At 05:59 PM 7/6/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>OK, I just talked to Tom on the phone and here is his idea for 7.2.  He
>says he already posted this, but I missed it.
>
>His idea is that in 7.2 VACUUM will only move rows within pages.  It
>will also store unused space locations into shared memory to be used by
>backends needing to add rows to tables.  Actual disk space compaction
>will be performed by new a VACUUM FULL(?) command.
>
>The default VACUUM will not lock the table but only prevent the table
>from being dropped.

Would 7.2 maintain performance when updating a row repeatedly (update,
commit)? Right now performance goes down in a somewhat 1/x manner. It's
still performs ok but it's nice to have things stay blazingly fast.

If not will the new vacuum restore the performance? 

Or will we have to use the VACUUM FULL?

Thanks,
Link.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2001-07-07 14:33:40
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 2 gig file size limit
Previous:From: Matthew HagertyDate: 2001-07-07 03:09:40
Subject: Async PQgetResult() question.

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ryan MahoneyDate: 2001-07-07 10:45:19
Subject: Re: Bad news for Open Source databases, acording to survey
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2001-07-07 05:51:26
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Partial indicies almost working (I think)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group