| From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL general list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Shortening time of vacuum analyze |
| Date: | 2002-01-30 20:47:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20020130154714.J20009@mail.libertyrms.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:23:50PM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> You can put the delete/load inside a transaction so the users will never
> see an empty table. Truncate can not be placed inside a transaction.
True enough. But why not leave the table unvacuumed, then, until a
more convenient time? You are, of course, paying a cost in
performance during that time, but not as great as you would with
vacuum.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bjoern Metzdorf | 2002-01-30 21:08:28 | Re: process exited with status 11 after XLogFlush: request is not satisfied |
| Previous Message | Mitch Vincent | 2002-01-30 20:17:36 | Re: please help me build a business case for using postgresql at my company |