From: Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: When to vacuum a table?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:26:52 -0800
Message-ID: <4569C04C.8090503@modgraph-usa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <195C9B6B-2018-474C-AA80-239A8CEA37E9@gmail.com>
References: <1164540257.7902.0.camel@panoramix>
<c13f2d590611260443m619cd825x912b262aef5162f9@mail.gmail.com>
<20061126131147.GA4089@uio.no>
<195C9B6B-2018-474C-AA80-239A8CEA37E9@gmail.com>
Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Just a minor clarification here: INSERT does not create dead rows, only
>> UPDATE and DELETE do. Thus, if you only insert rows, you do not need to
>> vacuum (although you probably need to analyze).
Is there no real-time garbage collection at all in Postgres? And if so, is this because nobody has had time to implement garbage collection, or for a more fundamental reason, or because VACUUM is seen as sufficient?
I'm just curious ... Vacuum has always seemed to me like an ugly wart on the pretty face of Postgres. (I say this even though I implemented an identical solution on a non-relational chemistry database system a long time ago. I didn't like it then, either.)
Craig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: cjames@modgraph-usa.com
Subject: Re: When to vacuum a table?
In-Reply-To: <4569C04C.8090503@modgraph-usa.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox