| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: When to vacuum a table? |
| Date: | 2006-11-26 17:47:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4569D33A.9090700@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> If you really want to know, read the mountains of (mostly) junk that
> have been written about replacing VACUUM in pgsql-hackers. The short
> answer (with apologies to Winston Churchill) is that VACUUM is the worst
> solution, except for all the others that have been suggested.
The lesser of 50 evils? ;)
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-11-26 23:25:23 | Re: shared_buffers > 284263 on OS X |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-26 17:06:06 | Re: When to vacuum a table? |