From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: why vacuum
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:57:20 -0600
Message-ID: <20051026055720.GA19105@winnie.fuhr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:15:17AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
> vacuumed once a week'.
The use of the word "commit" is amusing, considering that MySQL's
default table type doesn't support transactions. There's always
InnoDB, but it seems like there was something about that in the
news recently....
Compare the following lists of gotchas and decide which database
*you'd* commit mission-critical data to:
http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.htmlhttp://sql-info.de/postgresql/postgres-gotchas.html> So why does pg need vacuum?
See the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/maintenance.html#ROUTINE-VACUUMING
--
Michael Fuhr
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mike@fuhr.org, lawgon@thenilgiris.com
Subject: Re: why vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20051026055720.GA19105@winnie.fuhr.org>
* 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