From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partial VACUUM FULL |
Date: | 2004-03-23 23:06:53 |
Message-ID: | 4060C30D.3030106@potentialtech.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>>Another
>>is that the setting of vacuum_mem (in postgresql.conf) limits the amount of
>>cleanup that vacuum can do.
>
> This is completely untrue. Increasing vacuum_mem will likely make
> things faster on large tables (by avoiding the need for multiple passes
> over the indexes). It will not change the end result though.
My mistake then.
Was this true for some previous version? I could have swore I read somewhere
that vacuum_mem had to be set high enough or vacuum wouldn't be able to clean
everything up (aside from anything locked in transactions). Now that I'm
looking, I can't find any such reference, so perhaps I misunderstood and
twisted the meaning.
Is performance the only reason for increasing vacuum_mem?
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-23 23:08:32 | Re: linked list rewrite |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-23 22:51:04 | Re: partial VACUUM FULL |