Re: partial VACUUM FULL

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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