Re: VACUUM FULL name is very confusing to some people (or to most non expert people)

>
> Although VACUUM and VACUUM FULL is different, then result is same (depends
> on detail level) - the data files are optimized for other processing. You
> should to see a VACUUM like family of commands that does some data files
> optimizations. VACUUM, VACUUM FULL, VACUUM FREEZE, VACUUM ANALYZE, ...
> Personally I don't think so we need to implement new synonym command for
> this case.
>

Here's how I understand what you wrote : "Each and every vacuum operations
are different flavours for files optimization so it's legitimate to use
similar names". I agree for VACUUM ANALYZE and VACUUM FREEZE that can be
seen as options to do more things than a simple VACUUM.

But I disagree for VACUUM FULL that isn't an option to do one more thing
than VACUUM does. VACUUM FULL is a complete different process.

Let's take an example:
In a production server with average production load, if you're already
running a VACUUM, you can change it to a VACUUM ANALYZE without many risks.
But I wouldn't dare try a VACUUM FULL without pg_repack.

> Why you you cannot to say your students - "VACUUM FULL is like SHRINK in
> SQL Server"?
>

I do explain that to my students but I'm not sure they memorize it, because
they do have a lot to memorize in a training session.

I keep meeting customers to who I have to explain that a simple VACUUM
doesn't rebuild indexes. Am I the only one facing that problem ?

> Regards
>
> Pavel
>

Regards

Lætitia