X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D50D7EA0 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:57:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38524-04 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:57:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03FBDAE6B for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:57:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9Q5vLdQ003797 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:57:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9Q5vKLo019150; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:57:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j9Q5vK2S019149; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:57:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:57:20 -0600 From: Michael Fuhr To: Kenneth Gonsalves Cc: PostgreSQL SQL Subject: Re: why vacuum Message-ID: <20051026055720.GA19105@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/307 X-Sequence-Number: 23160 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.html http://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