RE: Why vacuum?

From: Tim Allen <tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Why vacuum?
Date: 2000-12-14 03:58:25
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0012141454310.3175-100000@bee.proximity.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> Plenty of other databases need to be 'vacuumed'. For instance, if you have
> an ms access database with 5 MB of data in it, and then delete all the data,
> leaving only the forms, etc - you will be left with a 5MB mdb file still!
>
> If you then run 'Compact Database' (which is another word for 'vacuum'), the
> mdb file will be reduced down to 500k...

Ooh... Hope MS Access isn't going to be taken seriously as a benchmark
here :-). The same is also true of MapInfo, by the way, but I'm not
holding that up as a benchmark either ;-).

> Chris

Tim

--
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Allen tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au
Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-12-14 04:17:08 Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-12-14 03:47:50 Re: Why vacuum?