| From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Doubt w.r.t vacuum |
| Date: | 2003-07-28 13:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | m31xware3d.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering over it. This is for difference between vacuum full and
> vacuum analyze. Can somebody enlighten,
>
> 1. IIRC vacuum recovers/reuses dead tuples generated from update but can not do
> so for delete? Why?
YDNRC.
> 2. Vacuum full locks entire table, is it possible that it locks a
> page at a time and deal with it. It will make vacuum full
> non-blocking at the cost of letting it run for a longer time. Or is
> it that the defragmentation algorithm needs more than a page?
This I don't know, but I imagine that if what you suggest was easy to
do it would have been done, and there would have been no need for two
different kinds of VACUUM.
-DOUG
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-07-28 13:25:05 | Re: Doubt w.r.t vacuum |
| Previous Message | Robert Creager | 2003-07-28 13:04:58 | Re: Regression test failure date. |