Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock?
От | Gregory Wood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 000d01c1c6e2$48b6e9a0$7889ffcc@comstock.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock? (Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is vacuum full lock like old's vacuum's lock?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
> > > Do sequential scans go over the entire space, including the space not in > > > use? It would be great if there was some kind of optimization that could > > > move the empty space towards the end. It would probably be an expensive > > > operation, but it may be very helpfull on databases with a big turnaround. > > > > The only difference between doing that and doing a VACUUM FULL would be that > > the disk usage would remain the same. > > There is one other extremely important difference. VACUUM FULL locks the > table/database. But to move around records, you *would* have to lock the table. This could be an incorrect assumption, but I believe that you would need to aquire an AccessExclusiveLock to rearrange the contents of the table, and that's the same lock aquired by VACUUM FULL. To put it another way, when you delete (or update) the first record in a particular table, to move that record to the end would require moving *all* the records up by one. This would destroy the existing MVCC system. You would essentially be VACUUM FULLing every time you did a DELETE or UPDATE. Greg
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: