Re: Why vacuum?
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why vacuum? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0012132345540.453-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why vacuum? (bpalmer <bpalmer@crimelabs.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, bpalmer wrote: > > Yes, postgresql requires vacuum quite often otherwise queries and > > updates start taking ungodly amounts of time to complete. If you're > > having problems because vacuum locks up your tables for too long > > you might want to check out: > > But why? I don't know of other databases that need to be 'vacuum'ed. Do > all others just do it internaly on a regular basis? > > What am I missing here? PgSQL's storage manager is currently such that it doesn't overwrite 'deleted' records, but just keeps appending to the end of the table ... so, for instance, a client of ours whose table had 5 records in it that are updated *alot* grew a table to 64Meg that only contains ~8k worth of data ... vacuum'ng cleans out the cruft and truncates the file ... vadim, for v7.2, is planning on re-writing the storage manager to do proper overwriting of deleted space, which will reduce the requirement for vacuum to almost never ...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: