Re: [GENERAL] Benchmarks

>     Untrue, vacuum is *extremely* important for updating statistics.
> If you have a lot of data in a table, and you have never vacuumed, you
> might as well not have any indices.  It'd be nice if you could seperate
> the stat update from the storage reclaim.  Actually, it'd be nice if you
> could reuse storage, so that an actual vacuum wouldn't be necessary unless
> you just wanted to free up disk space you might end up using again anyway.
>
>     The vacuum also doesn't seem to be very efficient.  In one of my
> databases, a vacuum could take in excess of 24 hours, while I've written a
> small SQL script that does a select rename and a insert into select from
> that will do the same job in about ten minutes.  This is a database that
> cannot lock for more than a few minutes.

This is serious.  Why would an INSERT / RENAME be so much faster.  Are
we that bad with VACUUM?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026