| From: | Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pablo Saul Salazar - CESERCOMP <ssalazar(at)goliat(dot)espol(dot)edu(dot)ec>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] table very big !!!!! |
| Date: | 1999-11-23 06:53:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9911230652370.711-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > Ah, try running first vacuum; then vacuum analyze. The first one will
> > truncate the table removing the wasted space. The second simply rebuilds
> > some statistics about the table.
>
> This is not right --- AFAICT, vacuum *always* runs the compaction phase.
> You can allow or skip the stats-gathering phase by specifying "analyze"
> or not, but "vacuum analyze" implies "vacuum".
Thanks for the correction. I've always run both myself, hence the answer.
Peter
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafal Piotrowski (CSCS) | 1999-11-23 08:47:10 | Re: [INTERFACES] problem with getBytes |
| Previous Message | Byron Nikolaidis | 1999-11-23 00:22:10 | Re: [INTERFACES] weird Access problem |