Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
Date: 2001-07-07 08:17:57
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010707161757.015a5e40@192.228.128.13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

At 05:59 PM 7/6/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>OK, I just talked to Tom on the phone and here is his idea for 7.2. He
>says he already posted this, but I missed it.
>
>His idea is that in 7.2 VACUUM will only move rows within pages. It
>will also store unused space locations into shared memory to be used by
>backends needing to add rows to tables. Actual disk space compaction
>will be performed by new a VACUUM FULL(?) command.
>
>The default VACUUM will not lock the table but only prevent the table
>from being dropped.

Would 7.2 maintain performance when updating a row repeatedly (update,
commit)? Right now performance goes down in a somewhat 1/x manner. It's
still performs ok but it's nice to have things stay blazingly fast.

If not will the new vacuum restore the performance?

Or will we have to use the VACUUM FULL?

Thanks,
Link.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryan Mahoney 2001-07-07 10:45:19 Re: Bad news for Open Source databases, acording to survey
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2001-07-07 05:51:26 Re: [PATCH] Partial indicies almost working (I think)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2001-07-07 14:33:40 Re: [HACKERS] 2 gig file size limit
Previous Message Matthew Hagerty 2001-07-07 03:09:40 Async PQgetResult() question.