Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <
> andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 20.06.2016 um 11:43 schrieb Job:
>>
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> I would suggest run only autovacuum, and with time you will see a not
>>>> more growing table. There is no need for vacuum full.
>>>>
>>> So new record, when will be pg_bulkloaded, will replace "marked-free"
>>> location?
>>>
>>
>>
>> exactly, that's the task for vacuum
>>
>>
> I believe that free space is only available to UPDATE, not INSERT.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Scott Mead
> Sr. Architect
> *OpenSCG <http://openscg.com>*
> http://openscg.com
>

Martin and Vik,

>...Think about a SELECT which has to scan all child tables.

You are really digging for a corner case.
If a scan has to scan all child tables, then
A. it negates the ability to make partitions which are not used
and
B. The SELECT query is poorly crafted.

--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.