From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Harald Fuchs <hf0923x(at)protecting(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
Date: | 2005-11-29 15:04:07 |
Message-ID: | 7158.1133276647@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Harald Fuchs <hf0923x(at)protecting(dot)net> writes:
> In article <20051129004435(dot)GR78939(at)pervasive(dot)com>,
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
>> Does that mean that this fast copy would end up not re-using space on
>> pages that have space available? ISTM that's something users would want
>> to be able to over-ride. In fact, it seems like it shouldn't be a
>> default behavior...
> Why not? If you later do INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, space will get reused
> anyway, and if you don't (i.e. one-time bulk load on a constant
> table), you should afterwards do a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE anyway.
You lost me at the "FULL" part.
In general, any "optimization" proposal that requires VACUUM FULL as
part of normal operation is a lost cause. You should instead be
thinking about procedures that won't require a VACUUM FULL, ever.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-29 15:06:18 | Re: ice-broker scan thread |
Previous Message | David Boreham | 2005-11-29 15:01:30 | Re: ice-broker scan thread |