Re: [INTERFACES] table very big !!!!!

From: Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pablo Saul Salazar - CESERCOMP <ssalazar(at)goliat(dot)espol(dot)edu(dot)ec>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] table very big !!!!!
Date: 1999-11-23 06:53:38
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.10.9911230652370.711-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > Ah, try running first vacuum; then vacuum analyze. The first one will
> > truncate the table removing the wasted space. The second simply rebuilds
> > some statistics about the table.
>
> This is not right --- AFAICT, vacuum *always* runs the compaction phase.
> You can allow or skip the stats-gathering phase by specifying "analyze"
> or not, but "vacuum analyze" implies "vacuum".

Thanks for the correction. I've always run both myself, hence the answer.

Peter

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf

In response to

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rafal Piotrowski (CSCS) 1999-11-23 08:47:10 Re: [INTERFACES] problem with getBytes
Previous Message Byron Nikolaidis 1999-11-23 00:22:10 Re: [INTERFACES] weird Access problem