Message-ID: <466967C4.70606@drivefaster.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:29:24 -0600
From: Dan Harris <fbsd@drivefaster.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] reclaiming disk space after major updates
References: <46672F7C.4020400@drivefaster.net>
	<20070607192025.GO14087@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<46687820.9000604@drivefaster.net>
	<20070608140354.GV17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070608140354.GV17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:26:56PM -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
>> They don't always have to be in a single transaction, that's a good idea to 
>> break it up and vacuum in between, I'll consider that.  Thanks
> 
> If you can do it this way, it helps _a lot_.  I've had to do this
> sort of thing, and breaking into groups of a couple thousand or so
> really made the difference.
> 
> A
> 

One more point in my original post.. For my own education, why does VACUUM FULL 
prevent reads to a table when running (I'm sure there's a good reason)?  I can 
certainly understand blocking writes, but if I could still read from it, I'd 
have no problems at all!

-Dan