| From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE Follow-Up |
| Date: | 2004-11-29 22:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20041129232130.B633@hermes.hilbert.loc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> >In any case, it is hard to see how the present behaviour can be seen as
> >desirable. It obviously causes problems at least for new Postgres
> >users, and we
> >all hope there will be many more of these folks in the future. Thanks
> >for considering this. Mark
>
> Uhmmm... analyze or vacuum on an empty table is fairly pointless. Those
> utilities are supposed to be used on tables that have data.
>
> So the answer is, use them on tables that have data.
What the OP seems to be saying is that to him it would make a
lot of sense to have vacuum by default not act on empty
tables.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dexter | 2004-11-29 22:57:28 | Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE Follow-Up |
| Previous Message | Gary Doades | 2004-11-29 22:14:02 | Re: USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ... |